ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (ESD) RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL ABALONE FISHERY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

JUNE 2009

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1. Fishery Management Plans and ESD Reporting ...... 7 1.2. The ESD Risk Assessment and Reporting Process ...... 9 2. BACKGROUND ...... 11 2.1. Description of the South Australian Abalone Fishery ...... 11 2.1.1 Location of the fishery ...... 11 2.1.2. Access to the fishery ...... 13 2.1.3. Fishing methods ...... 13 2.1.4. Retained species ...... 13 2.1.5. Non-retained species ...... 14 2.1.6. Traditional involvement in the fishery ...... 14 2.2. Management Arrangements and Objectives ...... 14 2.2.1. Management History of the Fishery ...... 14 2.2.2. Legislation ...... 15 2.2.3. Current Management Arrangements ...... 16 2.2.4. Catch and Effort Reporting ...... 18 2.3. Biology of Species...... 19 2.3.1. Biology of target species ...... 20 2.3.2. Current biological status ...... 22 2.4. Socio-economic environment ...... 24 2.5. Research ...... 27 2.5.1. Recent/Current Research ...... 27 2.5.2. Proposed/Future Research ...... 27 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 28 3.1. Scope ...... 28 3.2. Overview ...... 29 3.3. Issue Identification (component trees) ...... 30 3.4. Risk Assessment and Prioritisation of Issues ...... 31 3.5. Performance Reports for Higher Risk Issues ...... 34 3.6. Overview Table ...... 35 4. PERFORMANCE REPORTS ...... 38 4.1. Retained Species ...... 38 4.1.1. Primary Species ...... 38 4.1.2. Secondary Species ...... 43 4.1.3. By-catch ...... 43 4.2. Non-Retained Species ...... 45 4.2.1. Direct Interaction but No Capture ...... 45 4.3. General Ecosystem ...... 46 4.3.1. Impacts on Trophic Structure ...... 46 4.3.2. Habitat Disturbance ...... 48 4.3.3. Broader Environment ...... 48 4.3.4. Diseases ...... 49 4.4. Community Wellbeing ...... 50 4.4.1. Fishing Industry ...... 50

2 DRAFT

4.4.2. Dependent Communities ...... 52 4.4.3. Non-dependent Communities ...... 55 4.5. Aboriginal Community ...... 58 4.6. Governance ...... 59 4.6.1. Government ...... 59 4.7. External Impacts Affecting Performance of the Fishery ...... 65 4.7.1. Ecological Impacts on the Fishery ...... 65 4.7.2. Human Induced Changes ...... 69 4.7.3. Impacts of Other Drivers ...... 70 4.7.4. Access ...... 73 5. REFERENCES ...... 74

6. APPENDICES ...... 77 6.1. Appendix 1: Likelihood and Consequence Tables ...... 77

3 DRAFT

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Process for preparing a Fishery Management Plan ...... 8 Figure 2 The Southern, Central and Western Zones of the South Australian Abalone Fishery (the numbered boxes are data collection map codes)...... 12 Figure 3 An abalone diver collecting abalone using a self-propelled cage (source www.streakybayseafood.com.au)...... 13 Figure 4 A greenlip abalone (Haliotis laevigata) in its natural environment...... 21 Figure 5 A blacklip abalone (Haliotis rubra)...... 22 Figure 6 A) Total catch in shell weight, fishing effort and B) catch per unit effort of the South Australian Abalone Fishery from 1969 to 2008...... 23 Figure 7 A range of abalone products sold by Dover fisheries (source: www.doverfisheries.com.au)...... 24 Figure 8 Summary of the ESD reporting framework processes (Source: ESD Reporting How To Guide; Fletcher et al. 2002)...... 30 Figure 9 South Australian Abalone Fishery Component Tree Structure ..... 31 Figure 10 Component tree for the retained species in the South Australian Abalone Fishery ...... 38 Figure 11 Annual shell weight catch of greenlip abalone in the Southern, Central and Western Zones from 1969 to 2008. Data up to 1978 are not validated and those of July-December 2008 are provisional. The red, blue and pink arrow indicates implementation of TACCs in the Western, Southern and Central Zones, respectively...... 40 Figure 12 Annual catch levels and catch rates of blacklip abalone in the Southern, Central and Western Zones from 1967 to 2008. Data up to 1978 are not validated and those of July-December 2008 are provisional. The red, blue and pink arrow indicates implementation of TACCs in the Western, Southern and Central Zones, respectively...... 42 Figure 13 Component tree for the non- retained species in the South Australian Abalone Fishery...... 45 Figure 14 Component tree for the General Ecosystem Effects of the South Australian Abalone Fishery ...... 46 Figure 15 Component tree for the contribution of the South Australian Abalone Fishery to Community/Regional Socio-Economic Wellbeing...... 50 Figure 16 Component tree for the Indigenous community of the South Australian Abalone Fishery ...... 58 Figure 17 Component tree for the governance of the South Australian Abalone Fishery ...... 59 Figure 18 Component tree of the external impacts of the South Australian Abalone Fishery ...... 65 Figure 19 Exchange rate (USD) and price for South Australian Abalone, 1990/01 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009)...... 71

4 DRAFT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of management measures for the commercial sector of the South Australian Abalone Fishery in 2008*. sw = shell weight; mw = meat weight; SL = shell length...... 17 Table 2 Summary of management measures for the Recreational South Australian Abalone Fishery...... 18 Table 3 Abalone exports from South Australia, by product type, 2005/06 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009)...... 24 Table 4 Abalone exports from South Australia, by country of destination, 2005/06 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009)...... 25 Table 5 Catch and value of the South Australian Abalone Fishery,1990/91 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009)...... 26 Table 6 Economic rent in the South Australian Abalone Fishery, 1997/98 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009)...... 26 Table 7 Primary ESD Components ...... 29 Table 8 Risk ranking definitions ...... 33 Table 9 Overview of the South Australian Abalone Fishery Ecological Assessment Report ...... 35 Table 10 The economic impact of the South Australian Abalone Fishery in the Eyre region, 2007/08 (source: Econseach 2009)...... 52 Table 11 Average annual regional investment expenditures by licence holders in the South Australian Abalone Fishery, 2003/04 to 2007/08 (source: Econseach 2009)...... 54 Table 12 The economic impact of the South Australian Abalone Fishery South Australia, 2007/08 (source: Econseach 2009)...... 56 Table 13 Likelihood Definitions ...... 77 Table 14 Consequence categories for the Major Retained/Non-Retained Species ...... 77 Table 15 Consequence categories for the By-Product Species/Minor Non- retained species ...... 78 Table 16 Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on Protected species ...... 78 Table 17 Consequence levels for the impacts of a fishery on habitats ...... 79 Table 18 Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on the general ecosystem/trophic levels ...... 80 Table 19 Consequence levels for impacts of management of a fishery at a political level ...... 81

5 DRAFT

1. INTRODUCTION

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles are the basis of fisheries and aquatic resource management in South Australia. Within the South Australian Fisheries Management Act 2007, ESD is described as “the use, conservation, development and enhancement of the aquatic resources of the State in a way, and at a rate, that will enable people and communities to provide for their economic, social and physical well-being”.

The Fisheries Division of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA Fisheries) is responsible for fisheries management under the Act and must:

sustain the potential of aquatic resources of the State to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the aquatic resources of the State; and avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of activities on the aquatic resources of the State.

Similar ESD based management objectives are now widely accepted as the foundation of Australian State and Commonwealth fisheries and environmental management legislation, and ESD principles also underpin key international fisheries treaties and agreements. These include the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

ESD concepts also drive key fisheries aspects of the Australian Government‟s overarching Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This legislation requires that all Commonwealth, State and Territory fisheries that export some or all of their catch are assessed against fisheries sustainability criteria before being licensed for export. This EPBC Act assessment process is focussed on the ecological impacts of fishing to ensure that management outcomes avoid overfishing and recover over-fished stocks; maintain biodiversity; and minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem structure, function, and productivity.

Achieving strong ESD outcomes for commercial fisheries is a complex balancing act. It requires careful integration of immediate, medium, and long term resource use priorities with the full range of environmental, economic and social considerations facing business and communities. South Australia‟s commercial and recreational fisheries are a significant part of the States identity, and are very important both economically and culturally. The commercial wild catch fishing sector has an annual production value of around $220 million and it is estimated that 328,000 South Australians enjoy recreational fishing each year. The viability of these important commercial and recreational activities relies on healthy and productive ecosystems, supported by an efficient regulatory and business framework.

6 DRAFT

1.1. Fishery Management Plans and ESD Reporting

The Fisheries Management Act 2007 has been in place since 1 December 2007. Since then, the Fisheries Council of South Australia has been established and is the peak advisory body to the Minister. The primary functions of the Fisheries Council are to prepare fisheries management plans under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and to advise the Minister on key aspects of fisheries and aquatic resource management.

To coincide with these changes, Fishery Management Committees (FMCs) were discontinued from 1 July 2007 and PIRSA Fisheries has signed communication protocols with the representative industry body for each commercial fishery sector. This is the Abalone Management South Australia Ltd (AMSA) for the South Australian Abalone Fishery.

Under the Act, the preparation of fishery management plans on behalf of the Minister is a key responsibility of the Fisheries Council. Management plans are a significant instrument, guiding decisions on annual catch or effort levels, the allocation of access rights, and establishing the tenure of valuable commercial licences.

The Minister has directed the Fisheries Council to prepare management plans for the Abalone Fishery, Blue Crab Fishery and Recreational Charter Boat Fishery. PIRSA Fisheries is leading the preparation of these draft plans on behalf of the Fisheries Council and in close collaboration with industry associations.

The Act also describes the nature and content of fishery management plans including mandatory requirements. Among other things, management plans must describe the biological, economic and social characteristics of a fishery. Management plans must also include a risk assessment of the impacts or potential impacts of the fishery on relevant ecosystems. This risk assessment will then be used to develop management strategies that will best pursue fishery specific ESD objectives. The broad process is outlined in Figure 1 on the following page.

7 DRAFT

ESD RISK ASSESSMENT Preliminary assessment by PIRSA/SARDI Stakeholder risk assessment workshop PIRSA prepares risk assessment report

FORMULATE OBJECTIVES OF MANAGEMENT PLAN PIRSA and industry association

DEVELOP HARVEST STRATEGY PIRSA and industry association

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN Further iterations developed by PIRSA in consultation with industry association

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN Fisheries Council to approve for statutory consultation process

MANAGEMENT PLAN AND EXPLANATORY REPORT RELEASED Fisheries Council

Figure 1 Process for preparing a Fishery Management Plan

The Act specifies that management plans may remain in force for up to 10 years from commencement. For developmental fisheries they may remain in force for up to 3 years. To ensure that management plans remain relevant, efficient, and focussed on the legislative and policy objectives of the day, the Fisheries Council must conduct a detailed review of the operation of a management plan soon after its 5th anniversary. This process will include a review of the ESD risk assessment.

8 DRAFT

1.2. The ESD Risk Assessment and Reporting Process

To efficiently meet its ESD accountabilities under both State and Commonwealth legislation, PIRSA Fisheries has adopted the National ESD Reporting Framework for Fisheries1. This approach, developed in Australia, has been extensively used to analyse and report on the ESD performance of commercial fisheries, and has the potential to drive substantial performance improvements. When applied appropriately the national framework will: substantially improve knowledge about the environmental, economic, and social issues relevant to the ESD performance of a fishery; enable consistent and comprehensive analysis and reporting of the current and strategic operating environment for fisheries (this may also usefully inform industry strategic and business planning initiatives); engage industry, key fishery stakeholders, managers and scientists in a proven, transparent, and clearly defined collaborative process to understand and improve fisheries management performance; and improve the efficiency and quality of performance reporting against a range of public and private sector accountabilities (such as the EPBC Act Strategic Assessment process, or industry business planning initiatives).

In mid May 2009, PIRSA arranged the first of several ESD risk assessment workshops with key fishery stakeholders, engaging an independent facilitator to run the workshop process. These workshops built on earlier scoping work by fisheries managers and industry to identify the majority of management issues facing each fishery and to start the process of developing detailed fishery specific ESD component trees. The key steps undertaken at the broader stakeholder workshops to inform the development of this full ESD report are outlined below:

1. The generic ESD component trees were modified through an iterative process with stakeholders into a set of trees specific to each fishery. This process was used to identify all of the issues relevant to ESD performance of a fishery.

2. A risk assessment of the identified issues (or components) was completed based on the likelihood and consequence of events that may undermine or alternatively contribute to ESD objectives. This was an iterative process involving managers, scientists, industry and key stakeholders.

3. Risks were then prioritised according to their severity. For higher level risks a detailed analysis of the issue, associated risks, and preferred risk

1 The National ESD Reporting Framework was initially developed under the Standing Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture. The framework was then finalised under FRDC project (FRDC 2000/145). The series of PIRSA Fisheries ESD reports commencing with the Abalone, Blue Crab, and Charter Fisheries draw heavily on this national approach. See Fletcher et al., 2002; or www.fisheries-esd.com for details.

9 DRAFT

management strategies was completed. For low risk issues, the reasons for assigning low risk and/or priority were recorded.

4. For higher level risks a full ESD performance report in the context of specific management objectives was prepared. This includes operational objectives, indicators, data required, performance measures, and preferred management responses.

5. A detailed fishery specific background report was also prepared to guide the identification of issues, risks and management strategies. This report includes the history of the fishery and its management, the areas of operation and their biological and physical characteristics, target species and by-product and by-catch species, and other relevant information.

The full ESD reporting process outlined above provides a logical framework for managers and stakeholders to identify, prioritise, and efficiently manage risks to achieve agreed ESD objectives. Where there are substantial knowledge gaps, the process informs cost effective and efficient research strategies targeted to high risk areas.

10 DRAFT

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. Description of the South Australian Abalone Fishery

2.1.1 Location of the fishery

Abalone (Family: Haliotidae; Genus; Haliotis) are univalve marine gastropods that inhabit near-shore reefs throughout the waters of South Australia. The South Australian Government has management jurisdiction for abalone from the low water mark out to three nautical miles. It also has jurisdiction from three nautical miles out to the edge of the Australian Fishing Zone (200 nautical miles) under an Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) agreement between the South Australian and Commonwealth governments. For management purposes, the South Australian Abalone Fishery is separated into three main fishing zones. These are known as the Southern, Central and Western Zones.

Southern Zone The Southern Zone of the South Australian Abalone Fishery includes all coastal waters of South Australia east of Meridian 139°E, with the exception of the Coorong and waters inside the Murray River mouth (Fig. 2). This Zone is sub-divided into non-fish down areas (called region S) and four “fish-down” areas (FDAs). “Stunted” (110-124.9 mm shell length) can be legally harvested in the FDAs.

Central Zone The Central Zone of the South Australian Abalone Fishery includes all coastal waters of South Australia between the Meridians 136°30‟E and 139°E (Fig. 2). Although Cowell is found within the boundaries of the Central Zone, this area of ~25 km2 is managed separately.

Western Zone The Western Zone of the South Australian Abalone Fishery includes all coastal waters of South Australia between the Western Australia/South Australia border and Meridian 136°30‟E (Fig. 2). This Zone is sub-divided into Region A (Meridian 133°50.8‟E to 136°30‟E) and Region B. These two Regions are managed separately.

Within these management zones, there are some aquatic reserves, which have prohibitions and restrictions on what species can be taken, including abalone. The locations and coordinates of the State‟s aquatic reserves are provided in the Fisheries Management (Aquatic Reserves) Regulations 2007 or on the PIRSA Fisheries website (www.pir.sa.gov.au).

The taking of abalone is also prohibited in the waters of Waterloo Bay and from intertidal reef areas.

11 DRAFT

Figure 2 The Southern, Central and Western Zones of the South Australian Abalone Fishery (the numbered boxes are data collection map codes).

12 DRAFT

2.1.2. Access to the fishery

Access to the commercial South Australian Abalone Fishery is provided through a licence. Licences are endorsed with quota units for either the Southern, Central or Western Zones.

Recreational fishers also have access to the abalone resource, subject to complying to various management arrangements that restricts their catch (see section 2.2.3). Recreational fishing for abalone has traditionally been undertaken using SCUBA diving. The first and only comprehensive survey of recreational catch and effort levels in South Australia was undertaken for the period May 2000 to April 2001 by Henry and Lyle (2003). This survey estimated that the total recreational catch of abalone in this state consisted of 17,780 animals, weighing ~9 tonnes (~1% of the commercial catch).

2.1.3. Fishing methods

Commercial abalone divers operate from small boats using hookah gear (a long hose delivering air to the diver from a deck-mounted compressor). Divers harvest abalone by hand with a metal blade known as an “abalone iron” and sometimes use self-propelled cages that provide protection from sharks and enable them to fish (by drifting) large areas with minimal effort (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 An abalone diver collecting abalone using a self-propelled cage (source www.streakybayseafood.com.au).

2.1.4. Retained species

The South Australian Abalone Fishery targets the blacklip abalone Haliotis rubra (Leach 1814) and greenlip abalone Haliotis laevigata (Donovan 1808). Another three species of abalone, namely Haliotis cyclobates, Haliotis scalaris and Haliotis roei, can be taken, but as they rarely reach the legal minimum size limit of 130 mm SL, they are seldom landed by the fishery.

13 DRAFT

2.1.5. Non-retained species

The South Australian Abalone Fishery is a selective fishery, using hand- collection of the abalone. As such, by-catch is limited to the unavoidable removal of encrusting and boring organisms that live on abalone shells, such as limpets and algae.

2.1.6. Traditional involvement in the fishery

Many Aboriginal communities have a long history of fishing in what are now known as South Australian waters. Each community‟s fishing activities and cultural practices are distinct. Information about these activities and practices will be described in each Aboriginal Traditional Fishing Management Plan. These plans are currently being developed through the South Australian Government process of negotiating Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) with the native title claimants, and will be available as the plans are finalised. This process will help in quantifying the level of Aboriginal fishing across all fisheries in South Australia.

2.2. Management Arrangements and Objectives

2.2.1. Management History of the Fishery

A review of the management arrangements to control catch and effort levels in the South Australian Abalone Fishery is provided by Shepherd and Rodda (2001). Some of the se arrangements are discussed below.

Soon after its inception in the mid 1960s, the number of entrants in this fishery had exceeded 100. In 1971, licences were made non-transferable to reduce the number of operators and minimum legal lengths (MLL) of 130 mm SL were imposed on all abalone species to help conserve egg-production. In the same year, the fishery was divided into three management zones in recognition of the significant differences in geological and ecological character between the western, central and southern borders of the South Australian coast. These three management zones are still in operation today (see Fig. 2) (Mayfield and Saunders 2008).

The policy of non-transferability decreased the number of licence holders to 30 by 1976, when five new licences were issued, bringing the total to 35. Sub Zones and fishing blocks were replaced by map numbers and codes in 1978 and licences became transferable in 1980. In 1984, the minimum legal length of greenlip abalone in the Western Zone was increased from 130 mm to 145mm and the minimum legal length for blacklip abalone in the Southern Zone was amended to 120 mm. Due to concerns of overexploitation, individual quotas were introduced to the Western Zone in 1985. Individual quotas were subsequently introduced into the Southern Zone in 1988 and Central Zone in 1989. In 1988, the blacklip abalone minimum legal length was also increased to 125 mm. The owner-operator regulation was abolished in 1993.

14 DRAFT

2.2.2. Legislation

The Fisheries Management Act 2007 provides the broad statutory framework to provide for the conservation and Management of South Australia‟s fisheries resources. In the administration of this Act, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries must pursue the following objectives, outlined in Section 7:

(1) An object of this Act is to protect manage, use and develop the aquatic resources of the State in a manner that is consistent with ecologically sustainable development and, to that end, the following principles apply: (a) proper conservation and management measures are to be implemented to protect the aquatic resources of the State from overexploitation and ensure that those resources are not endangered; (b) access to the aquatic resources of the State is to be allocated between users of the resources in a manner that achieves optimum utilisation and equitable distribution of those resources to the benefit of the community; (c) aquatic habitats are to be protected and conserved, and aquatic ecosystems and genetic diversity are to be maintained and enhanced; (d) recreational fishing and commercial fishing activities are to be fostered for the benefit of the whole community; and (e) the participation of users of the aquatic resources of the State, and of the community more generally, in the management of the fisheries is to be encouraged;

(2) The principle set out in subsection (1)(a) has priority over the other principles.

(3) A further object of this Act is that the aquatic resources of the State are to be managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner and targets set for the recovery of management costs.

(4) The minister, the Director, the Council, the ERD Court and other persons or bodies involved in the administration of this Act, and any other person or body required to consider the operation or application of this Act (whether acting under this Act or another Act), must- (a) act consistently with, and seek to further the objects of this Act; and (b) insofar as this Act applies to the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary, seek to further the objects and objectives of the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary 2005; and (c) insofar as this Act applies to the River Murray, seeking to further the objects of the River Murray Act 2003 and the Objectives for a Healthy River Murray under that Act; and (d) insofar as this Act applies to areas within a marine park, seek to further the objectives of the Marine Parks Act 2007.

15 DRAFT

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), ecologically sustainable development comprises the use, use, conservation, development and enhancement of the aquatic resources of the State in a way, and at a rate, that will enable people and communities to provide for their economic, social and physical well-being while- (a) sustaining the potential of aquatic resources of the State to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; (b) safe-guarding the life-supporting capacity of the aquatic resources of the State; and (c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects of activities on the aquatic resources of the State, (taking into account the principle that if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the aquatic resources of the State, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent such damage).

The regulations that govern the management of the South Australian Abalone Fishery are the Fisheries Management Act 2007, the Fisheries Management (Abalone Fisheries) Regulations 2006, the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations 2007 and the Fisheries Management (Fish Processor) Regulations 2006.

2.2.3. Current Management Arrangements

Management Plans The first management plan for the South Australian Abalone Fishery was developed in 1997 and provided a series of performance indicators and a reference range to guide future management decision-making (Zacharin 1997). This plan was superseded by the 2004 Management Plan (Nobes et al. 2004) on 1 January 2005 and now covers all fishing activity undertaken within the South Australian Abalone Fishery, including commercial, recreational, Aboriginal and any illegal fishing. For the latter plan, the fishery is assessed against the principles of Ecological Sustainable Development. Both these management plans were developed in accordance with the Fisheries Act 1982.

A new management plan will be developed under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 through a consultative process, including a period of public consultation. This will provide the opportunity for interested and affected parties to contribute to future management of the abalone resource. The new management plan will operate for a five-year period, from 2009 to 2014, and will be used to guide decision-making in relation to management and research for the fishery. Regular stock assessment reports will provide the basis for assessment of fishery performance in various areas of each of the three management zones and address the key performance indicators and reference points outlined in the plan. The ESD risk assessment report is the first step in developing the new management plan.

16 DRAFT

Commercial fishery A summary of the current management arrangements in the commercial fishery is shown in Table 1.

One of the main tools used to manage the abalone resource is a quota management system. This system requires a total allowable commercial catch (TACC) limit to be set every year in each management zone for both target species (see Table 1 for current TACCs). The catch each licence holder can take is directly related to the number of quota units endorsed on their licence. These are issued annually as separate entitlements, after the TACC has been set, and are fully transferable within zones. Temporary transfers are also permitted. A full description of how the quota allocation is calculated each year and subsequently allocated among licences can be found in the 2004 Management Plan (Nobes et al. 2004).

Commercial access to the South Australian Abalone Fishery is limited to a total of 35 commercial licences (Table 1). There are 23 licences in the Western Zone and 6 each in the Central and Southern Zones. Minimum legal lengths also apply and vary from a minimum shell length of 110 mm for blacklip abalone in the FDAs of the Southern Zone to 145 mm for greenlip abalone in the Western Zone (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of management measures for the commercial sector of the South Australian Abalone Fishery in 2008*. sw = shell weight; mw = meat weight; SL = shell length. Management tool Southern Zone Central Zone Western Zone

Limited entry 6 6 23

Greenlip 6 (sw) Region A Greenlip 143.1 (sw) Greenlip 227.7 (sw) Blacklip: 24.3 (sw) Blacklip 295.25 (sw) Non FDA

TACC (t) Blacklip 99 (sw)

Cowell Region B FDA Greenlip 2.9 (mw) Total 41.4 (sw) Blacklip 45 (sw)

Quota season 1 Sept. to 31 Aug 1 Jan. to 31 Dec. 1 Jan. to 31 Dec.

130 mm Greenlip Minimum legal length 130 mm Greenlip 145 mm Greenlip 110 mm Blacklip (shell length) 130 mm Blacklip 130 mm Blacklip 125 mm Blacklip

17 DRAFT

Recreational fishery The recreational sector is managed through of combination of output and input controls that ensure the total recreational catch is maintained within sustainable limits and that access to the fishery and fishing opportunities are equitably distributed between recreational participants. These regulations are outlined in Table 2 and include minimum legal lengths, a maximum daily bag limit, a daily boat limit and a possession limit of 15 abalone.

Table 2 Summary of management measures for the Recreational South Australian Abalone Fishery.

Management Southern Central Western tool Zone Zone Zone

130 mm SL Blacklip 130 mm SL Blacklip 130 mm SL Blacklip Minimum length 130 mm SL Greenlip 130 mm SL Greenlip 145 mm SL Greenlip

Daily boat limit 10 per day 10 per day 10 per day

Daily bag limit 5 per person per day 5 per person per day 5 per person per day

Possession limit 15 15 15

2.2.4. Catch and Effort Reporting

To monitor catch and facilitate compliance with quota limits, fishers must complete a Catch and Disposal Record (CDR) form immediately upon landing. A research logbook must also be completed for each fishing day and submitted to SARDI Aquatic Sciences at the end of each month. The research logbook provides information on the date of fishing, the fishing area, the amount of time spent fishing, whether or not an underwater vehicle was used, the diving depth and the total catch landed (Mayfield et al. 2008). These types of data have been collected since the inception of the fishery and few changes have been made to the data collection system over the last 30 years. The most notable was made in 1978, when sub-zones and fishing blocks were replaced by spatially smaller map numbers (=fishing areas) and map codes.

PIRSA Fisheries has also implemented a generic data recording logbook for wildlife interactions (including threatened, endangered and protected species – TEPS) in 2007 for all South Australian commercial fisheries. The TEPS logbook was implemented to ensure consistent reporting practices for interactions with TEPS and to fulfill the requirements under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, as well as addressing the recommendations made by Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) for South Australian commercial fisheries export approval. SARDI Aquatic Sciences is currently collecting and archiving the data from the TEPS logbooks and an annual report will be prepared to summarize them.

18 DRAFT

2.3. Biology of Species

Abalone can grow to a shell length of 240 mm and live up to 30 years in unfished populations (Shepherd 2008). Newly settled post-larval abalone can be first seen on coralline algae at a size of ~2mm, when they are 4 weeks old (Shepherd and Daume 1996). After that, growth is rapid, and most species reach ~20mm in the first year (Shepherd 1988). The growth rate is linear for up to 4 more years for both greenlip and blacklip, before slowing dramatically and reaching a maximum size, with year classes becoming indistinguishable by size. The primary determinants of growth rate are water temperature, water movement and the quantity and species of macro-algae available for consumption (Shepherd 1988).

The planktonic larval period for both species lasts between 4-7 days, depending on water temperature. During this period, the free-swimming larvae (called a veliger) do not feed and are transported by water currents. Larval dispersal studies (reviewed by Morgan and Shepherd 2006) have shown that larvae can drift many kilometres from their natal site, but are often retained within the same bay or the same reef system (Shepherd 2008). In their review, Morgan and Shepherd (2006) concluded that larvae of shallow-water species such as blacklip and greenlip tended to be philopatric (i.e. they settled near their parental reefs), whereas larvae of deeper water species were dispersed far more widely.

When a larva is ready to settle, it swims up and down near the bottom, testing different surfaces, until it encounters the surface of an appropriate species of encrusting coralline alga, or an alternative settlement substrate (Roberts 2001). It then undergoes metamorphosis, induced by a chemical signal present in the coralline or due to extended developmental time in the water column, and changes into a juvenile abalone (Shepherd and Turner 1985). The tiny (<1mm) abalone lives on the coralline until it is ~5mm long. Another cue that induces the settlement of veligers is the mucus trails of other abalone of the same species (called the slime trail hypothesis) (see Morgan and Shepherd 2006). According to this hypothesis, if a local population is depleted from a given area, veligers are less likely to settle there, despite the presence of suitable corallines (Shepherd 2008). This has serious implication for an abalone fishery, where over-fishing can occur.

The period from settlement to sexual maturity is one in which the animals are largely cryptic, with smaller animals feeding in crevices or emerging to feed at night. Daytime emergence into more open areas coincides generally with onset of sexual maturity, which is age rather than size dependent (Shepherd 1988). Abalone typically reach sexual maturity at about three years of age and grow to a harvestable size in 4 to 10 years. Recruitment may vary widely from year to year and relationship between stock size and subsequent recruitment are ambivalent (Prince et al. 1988; Shepherd 1990; McShane and Smith 1991).

19 DRAFT

Abalone are dioecious broadcast spawners, i.e., eggs and sperm are released into the water column where fertilization takes place (Shepherd 2008). Studies on the fertilisation process show that fertilisation success is strongly influenced by adult density. When males and females are more than about a metre apart the successful fertilisation of eggs falls off very sharply (Babcock and Keesing 1999).

As larval dispersal and adult movements are generally localised, intermixing of recruits tends to be limited, leading to patchily distributed but highly dense aggregations, or meta-populations, with distinct genetic differentiation. These clusters of largely self-recruiting meta-populations are separated from other similar clusters over a broad range of spatial scales (Brown and Murray 1992, Hancock 2000) and there is often limited dispersal between meta-populations. This lack of connectivity among meta-populations increases the risk that localised over-fishing can occur without being reflected in the fishery- dependent data sets.

During over-fishing, recruitment becomes more variable and less dependable, and the productive capacity of the stock declines, thus hastening the fishery‟s decline (Shepherd 2008). This may be because over-fishing puts a population in double jeopardy: too low densities (i.e. <0.1 - 0.3m2) mean that successful fertilisation of eggs can fail because abalone are too far apart, and settlement cues such as adult slime trails may be lacking, so that larvae settle in inferior places. This emphasizes the need in these sedentary stocks to engage in fine-scale management, if serial declines are to be avoided, as even low levels of fishing may impede recovery.

2.3.1. Biology of target species

There are clear differences in habitat preferences, distribution, diet, growth and other characteristics between the two main commercial species. Some of these are discussed below.

Greenlip abalone Greenlip abalone are contiguous throughout southern Australia from Corner Inlet in Victoria to Cape Naturaliste in Western Australia, with the bulk of the population found in South Australia (Shepherd 2008). For most of their distribution, they occur in two types of habitats. One type consists of low reef areas (often in a part sand/ part rock environment) at depths ranging from 5 to 40 metres (Fig. 4). Such areas, with reef outcropping from the sand, are common off the central and west coasts of South Australia and provide the main commercial fishing grounds. Abundance in this type of habitat is usually highest on the leeward side of reefs, headlands, and islands, where the abalone are protected from the full force of wave action.

Drift algae (preferably red algae) also tends to gather in these locations and provides a better supply of food.

20 DRAFT

Greenlip abalone also occur in rough water at the base of steeply sloping granite cliffs, and usually along the sides of gutters or clefts from depths of 10 to 25 metres. In areas of calm water, they may occur in shallower water on rocky habitat near seagrass beds.

Figure 4 A greenlip abalone (Haliotis laevigata) in its natural environment.

In South Australia, greenlip abalone tend to spawn in a short synchronous period from late spring to early summer. The number of eggs spawned typically ranges from 100,000 to 1 million eggs and is largely depends upon size (Shepherd et al. 1992).

Size at maturity varies substantially among areas, but greenlip abalone are usually sexually mature at approximately 5 to 6 years of age, when the shell measures 100-105 mm in length (Shepherd 2008).

Greenlip abalone grow more rapidly and have a higher recorded maximum age and size than blacklip abalone. In South Australian waters, they reach a maximum size of 150-200mm in 10-15 years, but this varies considerably along the coast (Shepherd 1988). Differences in growth rates are primarily related to food availability and water temperature (Shepherd 1988).

21 DRAFT

Blacklip abalone Blacklip abalone (Fig. 5) are contiguous throughout southern Australia from Coffs Harbour in New South Wales to Rottnest Island in Western Australia. This species is typically found on sheltered reefs, hidden in caves, fissures and narrow crevices, generally in waters rarely exceeding 10 metres in depth and usually less than 5 metres.

Unlike the single season of greenlip abalone, blacklip abalone have two seasonal spawning periods, one in spring (October to December) and the other in autumn between February and April (Shepherd 2008).

Figure 5 A blacklip abalone (Haliotis rubra).

2.3.2. Current biological status

During the early phase of the South Australian Abalone Fishery, when there were no restrictions on the number of licence holders that could harvest abalone, in the order of 900-1300 tonnes of abalone were removed from this fishery per year. Since the introduction of TACCs into the three management zones in the mid- to late-1980s, harvest levels have been reduced to around 900 tonnes per year (Fig. 6). Over the same period, fishing effort has gradually declined, resulting in a gradual increase in mean annual CPUE.

Such an increase in CPUE suggests that this resource in not being over- exploited and there is some support for this. In 2004, the South Australian Abalone Fishery was assessed by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) against the “Guidelines for ecological sustainable management of fisheries”. This Department concluded that this was fishery was managed in an ecologically sustainable way and that stocks were not over-fished.

22 DRAFT

Further support can be found in the latest stock assessment reports by SARDI Aquatic Sciences, which suggest that both the greenlip and blacklip abalone fisheries in the Southern Zone (Mayfield et al 2009), Central Zone (Mayfield et al 2008), Western Zone Region A (Chick et al 2008) and Western Zone Region B (Chick and Mayfield 2006) are all currently classed as fully-fished.

These reports should be referred to when a detailed analysis of catch and effort is required.

Figure 6 A) Total catch in shell weight, fishing effort and B) catch per unit effort of the South Australian Abalone Fishery from 1969 to 2008.

23 DRAFT

2.4. Socio-economic environment

The flesh of the abalone‟s large muscular foot is the basis for this fishery, and is sold in a variety of ways including live, frozen, dried, parboiled and canned (see Table 3 and Fig. 7).

Table 3 Abalone exports from South Australia, by product type, 2005/06 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009).

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Product Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value (kg) ($'000) (kg) ($'000) (kg) ($'000) Preserved a 232,401 30,360 290,225 29,347 467,724 23,436 Live 0 0 0 0 4,945 160 Frozen Meat 106,062 13,688 146,582 18,064 148,583 15,547 Frozen Whole on Shell 43,913 2,207 77,288 3,786 82,836 3,004 Dried 587 613 10,485 1,513 2,639 2,165 Parboiled - Whole 0 0 9,190 352 4,336 227 Other 9,645 1,143 14,294 1,079 12,526 871 Total 392,608 48,011 548,064 54,141 723,589 45,410 Source: ABS data (unpublished). a Weight of preserved abalone is based on the number or cartons exported and on the assumption that the average weight per carton is 6.5kg (David Pickles, Dover Fisheries Pty Ltd, pers. comm.).

Figure 7 A range of abalone products sold by Dover fisheries (source: www.doverfisheries.com.au).

24 DRAFT

The majority of the abalone landed in South Australia is exported to South East Asia –Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan – as well as to a lesser extent North America, UK and Europe (Table 4).

Table 4 Abalone exports from South Australia, by country of destination, 2005/06 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009).

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Destination Quantity (kg) Value ($'000) Quantity (kg) Value ($'000) Quantity (kg) Value ($'000) Canada 7,527 961 11,246 1,457 27,005 1,909 China 4,316 1,112 1,835 397 1,679 313 Hong Kong 146,400 18,740 382,190 40,880 515,617 34,708 Japan 31,980 4,220 86,948 5,022 103,297 3,553 Malaysia 2,256 281 4,095 433 11,265 619 Singapore 12,194 1,495 20,337 1,882 18,590 1,565 Taiwan 10,342 1,301 4,319 481 6,490 312 USA 12,110 1,595 21,821 2,782 34,546 2,180 Other 5,278 655 15,275 806 5,100 251 Total 232,401 30,360 548,064 54,141 723,589 45,410

In 2007/08, a total catch of 899 tonnes was harvested, with an estimated gross landed value of production of $31 million (Table 5) (EconSearch 2009). This makes the South Australian Abalone Fishery the third most valuable fishery in South Australia, behind the Southern Rock Lobster and Western King Prawn fisheries, and provides around 20% of the national wild abalone production.

Another 198 tonnes of abalone were produced by the aquaculture industry in 2006/07, generating a further $7.2 million.

The data shown in Table 5 indicates the total catch of abalone in South Australia has remained relatively steady since 1990/91; however, the value of the fishery has increased significantly over the same period. For instance, the catch in 2007/08 (889 tonnes) was just over 3 per cent greater than that in 1990/91 (863 tonnes), yet the value of the catch has more than doubled in nominal terms, increasing from $14.0 million in 1990/91 to $31.0 million in 2007/08.

The economic rent generated by the South Australian Abalone Fishery between 1997/98 and 2007/08 is displayed in Table 6. In 2007/08, it was a little over $13.8 million, almost 5% higher than the previous year, but significantly lower than the $23.1 million of 2000/01 (EconSearch 2009).

25 DRAFT

Table 5 Catch and value of the South Australian Abalone Fishery,1990/91 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009).

Southern Zone Central Zone Western Zone South Australia Year (tonnes) ($m) (tonnes) ($m) (tonnes) ($m) (tonnes) ($m) 1990/91 121 2.0 187 3.0 555 9.1 863 14.0 1991/92 131 2.2 191 3.3 563 9.5 885 15.1 1992/93 176 4.0 168 4.9 525 14.9 869 23.7 1993/94 141 5.4 151 5.1 510 16.8 802 27.2 1994/95 154 4.4 205 5.5 492 12.8 851 22.8 1995/96 155 3.8 177 4.5 570 14.1 902 22.5 1996/97 146 3.8 195 5.7 562 15.7 903 25.2 1997/98 123 4.0 180 5.7 509 17.2 812 26.9 1998/99 171 4.7 170 5.0 592 17.4 933 27.2 1999/00 149 5.2 190 7.2 550 20.0 889 32.4 2000/01 145 6.7 188 9.1 534 24.1 867 40.0 2001/02 141 5.9 193 9.0 516 19.9 850 34.8 2002/03 146 5.8 171 8.0 573 22.5 890 36.3 2003/04 143 4.3 177 6.6 559 20.6 879 31.6 2004/05 157 5.9 180 7.4 565 20.5 902 33.8 2005/06 136 5.1 181 7.2 579 21.5 896 33.9 2006/07 164 6.1 168 6.2 551 19.3 883 31.5 2007/08 146 4.5 193 7.0 550 19.6 889 31.0

Table 6 Economic rent in the South Australian Abalone Fishery, 1997/98 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009). Less Opportunity Gross Less Cash Less Economic Less Labour Cost of Capital Income Costs Depreciation Rent (@10%) 1997/98 26,883 7,764 4,551 643 419 13,506 1998/99 27,161 8,074 3,923 637 415 14,112 1999/00 32,394 9,849 3,879 653 426 17,587 2000/01 40,011 11,284 3,879 1,223 567 23,059 2001/02 34,755 10,753 4,049 1,257 583 18,113 2002/03 36,289 12,213 4,317 1,308 606 17,846 2003/04 31,582 11,573 4,605 1,347 624 13,433 2004/05 35,549 9,081 6,036 1,899 953 17,581 2005/06 35,589 9,908 6,260 2,314 1,161 15,946 2006/07 33,140 10,039 6,418 2,321 1,165 13,197 2007/08 30,715 9,228 5,357 1,359 965 13,805

26 DRAFT

When an economic rent is generated in a fishery and there are transferable licences, the rent represents a return to the value of the licences. The aggregate value of licences in 2007/08 was estimated to be approximately $278.5 million (35 licences with an average value of approximately $8.0m). An annual economic rent of $13.8 million represents a return of 5.0 per cent to the capital value of the fishery (Table 6) (EconSearch 2009)

2.5. Research

2.5.1. Recent/Current Research

SARDI Aquatic Sciences undertakes regular stock assessments on both greenlip and blacklip abalone across all three Zones. These assessments provide an evaluation against the established key performance indicators and reference points outlined in the management plan and identify regions exhibiting undesirable levels of fishing pressure.

Commercial catch and effort data are used to provide the spatial and temporal analyses of catch, effort and CPUE. Data on length frequency distribution of the commercial catch are obtained by measuring samples provided by commercial fishers and data provided by the Abalone Industry Association of South Australia Incorporated (AIASA). SARDI Aquatic Sciences also undertakes fishery-independent sampling programs each year to estimate abundance and population size structure in priority areas. These include:

1. Southern Zone Greenlip and Blacklip Abalone: Cape Northumberland, Middle Point, Lingwood Reef, Gerloffs Bay, Jones Bay and Douglas Bay. 2. Central Zone Greenlip Abalone: Tiparra Reef, Port Victoria and Hardwicke Bay. 3. Central Zone Blacklip Abalone: NIL. Non-research divers will be used to survey stocks from this Zone from 2009/10. 4. Western Zone Blacklip Abalone: Sheringa, Ward Island, Hotspot, Drummond and Granites. 5. Western Zone Greenlip Abalone: Black Rocks, Flinders Island, Ward Island, Hotspot, the Gap, Point Avoid and Pearson Island.

2.5.2. Proposed/Future Research

„Structured Research Fishing‟ by commercial divers on the blacklip abalone resource south of Kangaroo Island (i.e. Central Zone) is being trialled as a way to gather relevant information. This is a joint effort driven by industry and guided by scientists.

Both PIRSA Fisheries and SARDI Aquatic Sciences will participate in a FRDC project on Management Strategy evaluation (MSE) that is scheduled to start in July 2009. A notable aim of this project is to develop and implement appropriate biological parameters and reference points that can be used nationally to harvest abalone.

27 DRAFT

3. METHODOLOGY

The current series of PIRSA ESD performance reports have been prepared to ensure that South Australian fisheries management is both effective and efficient in the context of achieving ESD outcomes. In addition to meeting the statutory requirements of the Fisheries Management Act 2007, and national environmental legislation, this approach will also provide the fishing industry, key stakeholders, and the broader community with an ongoing opportunity to contribute to, and influence, fisheries management outcomes. The reports will also provide the basis for the development of statutory management plans required under the Fisheries Management Act 2007. On behalf of the South Australian Fisheries Council, PIRSA Fisheries has used the comprehensive issue identification and subsequent risk assessment and priority setting process to collaboratively develop more effective management arrangements under the new Act. Where necessary this may include development of fishery specific harvest strategies, and related research and monitoring programs for each of the fisheries assessed. The issue identification, risk assessment, and reporting process described in detail below, as well as the final report format, is closely based on the National ESD Framework How To Guide (see www.fisheries-esd.com), as well as the Department of Fisheries Western Australia ESD performance reports pioneered by Dr Rick Fletcher and other WA Fisheries staff.

3.1. Scope

This ESD report describes “the contribution of the South Australian commercial Abalone Fishery to ESD” in the context of South Australian Fisheries legislation and policy. The report is based on preliminary scoping and issue identification work by PIRSA Fisheries staff in conjunction with Abalone Fishery industry representatives. This initial scoping was then refined and validated through a broader stakeholder workshop on 22 May 2009 facilitated by independent fisheries consultant.

The scope of the assessment was contained to issues relevant to the commercial Abalone Fishery. The recreational catch of abalone will be assessed separately through an ESD assessment of South Australian recreational fishing.

The assessment process examined an extensive range of issues, risks and opportunities identified by stakeholders during various abalone workshops. The identification of issues was informed by the generic ESD component tree approach with each fishery component tree refined specifically for this fishery. Each major component tree reflects the primary components of ESD, and the ESD report assesses the performance of the fishery for each of the relevant ecological, economic, social and governance issues facing the fishery (see Table 7). The process also identifies where additional (or reduced) management or research attention is needed, and identifies strategies and performance criteria to achieve management objectives to the required standard.

28 DRAFT

Table 7 Primary ESD Components

Retained Species

Non-Retained Species Ecological Wellbeing General Ecosystem Community Wellbeing

Aboriginal Community Human Wellbeing Governance External Factors Affecting Ability to Achieve Fishery Performance

3.2. Overview

The steps followed to complete this Abalone Fishery Report are detailed below:

1. A set of “Generic ESD Component Trees” were modified through an iterative process with stakeholders into a set of trees specific to the fishery. This process identified the issues relevant to ESD performance of the fishery under the categories described in Table 7 above. 2. A risk assessment of the identified issues (or components) was completed based on the likelihood and consequence of identified events that may undermine or alternatively contribute to ESD objectives. This was an iterative process involving managers, scientists, industry and key stakeholders. 3. Risks were then prioritised according to their severity. For higher level risks - where an increase in management or research attention was considered necessary - a detailed analysis of the issue, associated risks, and preferred risk management strategies was completed. For low risk issues, the reasons for assigning low risk and/or priority were recorded. 4. For higher level risks a full ESD performance report was prepared (Section 4 of this report). This was completed in the context of specific management objectives and includes operational objectives, indicators, data required, performance measures and preferred management responses. 5. A background report providing context and necessary supporting information about the fishery was also prepared to guide the identification of issues, risks and management strategies. This report includes the history of the fishery and its management, the areas of operation and their biological and physical characteristics, target species and by-product and by-catch species, and other relevant information.

The process is illustrated in Figure 8.

29 DRAFT

ESD Component Trees (issues identified) Use Data for PLUS other GENERAL Risk Assessment purposes BACKGROUND Low Risk/Priority > Low Risk/Priority INFORMATION For

example, Report on Develop Objectives = Applications Justification for Risk Indicators Rating Only Performance limits to EA Report Current Status ESD REPORT

Figure 8 Summary of the ESD reporting framework processes (Source: ESD Reporting How To Guide; Fletcher et al. 2002).

3.3. Issue Identification (component trees)

The Abalone Fishery ESD reporting component trees are a refined version of the generic trees suggested in the National ESD Reporting Framework (see Table 7 in Section 3.1). The generic trees and the issues that they encompass were the result of extensive consideration and refinement during the initial development of the National Fisheries ESD approach. The trees were designed to be very comprehensive to ensure that all of the conceivable issues facing a fishery would be considered during the workshop process. The fishery specific component trees developed after expert and stakeholder consideration provide a more realistic and practical illustration of the issues facing a particular fishery.

The generic component trees have been used as the starting point to ensure thorough, consistent, and rigorous identification and evaluation of ESD issues across all of the South Australian Fisheries being assessed. When developing each of the major fishery specific component trees, each primary component is broken down into more specific sub-components for which operational objectives can then be developed.

For example, the component tree identifying General ecosystem effects of the fishery that was refined during the stakeholder workshop for the South Australian Abalone Fishery is reproduced below in Figure 9.

30 DRAFT

General ecosystem effects of the fishery

Impacts on trophic structure Habitat disturbance Broader environment Disease

removal of abalone Anchoring Air quality

Dive equipment Impact on predators Greenhouse gas emissions Beach launching Impact on competitors Water quality

Discarding (shells and guts) Rubbish/ debris

Bilge discharge

Hydraulic oil (for cages)

Figure 9 South Australian Abalone Fishery Component Tree Structure

3.4. Risk Assessment and Prioritisation of Issues

Once the fishery specific component trees were developed and reviewed by stakeholders, the focus moved to the assessment and prioritisation of risks and opportunities facing the fishery. These have been considered in the context of the specific management objectives for each fishery being assessed. The higher level management objectives and desired ESD outcomes are those described in the Fisheries Management Act 2007. Risks and opportunities are also evaluated against more detailed fishery specific objectives - such as those articulated in the fishery‟s management plan.

The risk assessment of issues identified for the South Australian Abalone Fishery has been done on the basis of existing management which is currently managing risks to the fishery. Hence the risk assessment conducted during stakeholder workshops considered the residual risk after the existing risk treatments were taken into account. For example, PIRSA‟s current compliance program for the South Australian Abalone Fishery is itself based on a separate compliance risk assessment process. This process identifies compliance risks in the context of the fishery‟s management objectives, and then develops and applies strategies to mitigate those risks. The ESD assessment and reporting process works across the full suite of fishery ESD objectives in a similar way.

31 DRAFT

Risk assessment applied under the national ESD framework has been designed to be consistent with the Australian Standard AS/NZS 4360:1999 for Risk Management. Subject matter experts and key fishery stakeholders consider the range of potential consequences of an issue, activity, or event (identified during the component tree development process) and how likely those consequences are to occur. The estimated consequence of an event is multiplied by the likelihood of that event occurring to produce an estimated level of risk.

What is Risk Analysis?

“Risk analysis involves consideration of the sources of risk, their consequences and the likelihood that those consequences may occur.”

Australian and New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 4360 – 1999

ESD workshop participants worked methodically through each component tree from the top down and conducted a qualitative risk assessment of each issue. An estimate of the consequence level for each issue was made and scored from 0-5, with 0 being negligible and 5 being catastrophic/irreversible (see Appendix 1 for details of the risk consequence tables). The consequence estimate was based upon the combined judgement of workshop participants who had considerable expertise in the issues being assessed.

The level of consequence was estimated at the appropriate scale and context for the issue in question. For the target species (greenlip and blacklip abalone), the consequence assessment was based at the population not the individual level. Killing one abalone is catastrophic for the individual but not for the population. Similarly, when assessing possible ecosystem impacts this was done at the level of the whole ecosystem or at least in terms of the entire extent of the habitat, not at the level of an individual patch or individuals of non-target species2.

The likelihood of that consequence occurring was assigned to one of six levels from remote (1) to likely (6). This was based on a judgement about the probability of the events - or chain of events - occurring that could result in a particular adverse consequence. This judgement about conditional probability was again based on the collective experience and knowledge of workshop participants.

From the consequence and likelihood scores, the overall risk value (Risk = Consequence x Likelihood), was calculated. On the basis of this risk value each issue was assigned a Risk Ranking within one of five categories (see Table 8).

2 These descriptions, and detailed guidance about developing consequence and likelihood scores for fishery issues are provided in the ESD How To Guide at www.fisheries-esd.com.

32 DRAFT

Table 8 Risk ranking definitions

RISK Rank Likely Management Response Reporting

Negligible 0 Nil Short Justification Only

Low 1 None Specific Full Justification needed

Moderate 2 Specific Management Needed Full Performance Report

Possible increases to management High 3 Full Performance Report activities needed

Likely additional management Extreme 4 Full Performance Report activities needed

Where a more detailed and/or quantitative risk assessment and management process was in place for the fishery - such as a robust quantitative stock assessment for a target species - the resultant risk score could be expected to be moderate to low. The risk score in this example reflects the fact that the risk is effectively being managed through existing arrangements.

The national ESD reporting framework suggests that only those issues scored at moderate, high and extreme risk, which require additional management attention, need to have full ESD performance reports completed. This is the approach that has been used in the PIRSA ESD reports.

The rationale for scoring other issues as low or negligible risk has also been documented and form part of these reports. This encourages transparency and should help stakeholders to understand the basis for risk scores and the justification for no further management, or for additional management action if necessary. The process is summarised earlier in this section (Figure 8).

33 DRAFT

3.5. Performance Reports for Higher Risk Issues

As noted above, a comprehensive ESD performance report has only been prepared for higher risk/priority issues that require additional management attention (Section 4 of this report). The content of these reports is based on the standard subject headings recommended in the ESD Framework‟s How To Guide (Fletcher et al. 2002).

The full performance report for the South Australian Abalone Fishery was developed by PIRSA Fisheries, informed by the initial consultation with industry and then broader stakeholders at PIRSA‟s Adelaide ESD workshop on 22 May 2009. A preliminary draft ESD report was sent to industry members and other stakeholders for review. The review period was brief due to the short time frame available to finalise the reports before consideration by the Fisheries Council in June 2009.

34 DRAFT

3.6. Overview Table

The following table provides a summary of the material presented in the report.

Table 9 Overview of the South Australian Abalone Fishery Ecological Assessment Report

Risk Objective Indicator Performance Current Issue Developed Measured Measure Performance Robustness Actions RETAINED SPECIES Primary Target Species Catch, effort, TACC reviewed M YES To be determined Acceptable Robust (Greenlip abalone) CPUE, abundance every year Primary Target Species Catch, effort, TACC reviewed M YES To be determined Acceptable Robust (Blacklip abalone) CPUE, abundance every year Secondary species N Negligible risk N/A N/A N/A N/A *** By-catch N Negligible risk N/A N/A N/A N/A ***

NON-RETAINED SPECIES

Direct interaction but no capture N Negligible risk N/A N/A N/A N/A ***

GENERAL ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS Removal of abalone L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Impact on predators) *** Removal of abalone L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Impact on competitors) *** Discarding N Negligible risk N/A N/A N/A N/A *** Habitat disturbance N Negligible risk N/A N/A N/A N/A *** Broader environment N Negligible risk N/A N/A N/A N/A *** Diseases L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A ***

35

Risk Objective Indicator Performance Current Issue Developed Measured Measure Performance Robustness Actions COMMUNITY WELLBEING

Fishing Industry M N/A To be determined To be determined N/A N/A *** Regional centres L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Economic value) *** Regional centres L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Social value) *** Regional centres L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Infrastructure) *** Regional centres L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Attitude of recreational fishers) *** City centres N Negligible risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Economic values) *** City centres L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Research/knowledge) *** INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY

Economics TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC Employment TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC Community viability TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC Cultural values TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC GOVERNANCE Policy and management H YES To be determined To be determined N/A N/A (Resources) *** Policy and management M YES To be determined To be determined N/A N/A (Compliance-illegal fishing) *** Consultation L YES N/A N/A N/A N/A (Inter-agency coordination) ***

36 DRAFT

Risk Objective Indicator Performance Current Issue Developed Measured Measure Performance Robustness Actions Consultation M YES To be determined To be determined N/A N/A (Aquaculture) *** Other agencies L YES N/A N/A N/A N/A (Commonwealth-DEWHA) *** Other agencies M YES To be determined To be determined N/A N/A (AQIS) *** EXTERNAL FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF THE FISHERY

Physical L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A *** Biological Consult emergency H M M YES Presence of AVG N/A N/A (Diseases-AVG) response plan *** Biological L N N Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A (Diseases-Perkinsus) *** Exotic species L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A *** Water quality M YES To be determined To be determined N/A N/A (Desalination Plant) *** Economic Export value, M YES To be determined N/A N/A (Market forces) Exchange rates *** Economic M YES To be determined To be determined N/A N/A (Market access) *** Access L Low risk N/A N/A N/A N/A Marine Parks *** N/A - not applicable TBC - to be completed *** review at next major assessment, scheduled in 5 years.

37 DRAFT

4. PERFORMANCE REPORTS

In this Ecological Risk Assessment report, a pink box indicates a high risk that warrants a full performance report and possible increases to management activities. A yellow box indicates a moderate risk that warrants a full performance report. A green box indicates that a full justification is needed for why the issue was considered low risk. A blue box indicates that the issue was considered a negligible risk, with no specific management required, and only a justification is presented.

4.1. Retained Species

Retained Species

Primary Species Secondary species By-catch

Greenlip abalone Blacklip abalone Haliotis cyclobates Southern Zone

Haliotis scalaris Western Zone Region A Western Zone Region A Haliotis roei Western Zone Region B Western Zone Region B

Central Zone Central Zone

Cowell Southern Zone

Southern Zone Fishdown Areas >110 mm SL

Non-fishdown areas >125 mm SL

Figure 10 Component tree for the retained species in the South Australian Abalone Fishery

4.1.1. Primary Species

Greenlip abalone Objective Ensure the greenlip abalone resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors by maintaining the spawning stock of abalone at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment over-fishing.

38

ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the fishery on the greenlip abalone (Haliotis laevigata) resource (MODERATE)

Greenlip abalone are characterised by slow growth, limited recruitment and densely aggregated, self-recruiting meta-populations. The lack of connectivity among meta-populations makes them susceptible to localised depletions, particularly as diving is highly selective in targeting abalone and so is capable of having a significant impact on the stocks of this species.

To minimise the risk of overfishing, the abalone fishery is managed through both input controls (maximum of 35 licences) and output controls (quotas and size limits). One of the main tools used to control the harvest of greenlip abalone is the setting of TACCs. TACCs are set for this species in each management zones. These TACCs are reviewed annually and can be adjusted to change the total catch as required.

Greenlip abalone are also taken for aquaculture broodstock, by the recreational sector and by illegal fishing. The latter is specifically addressed in Governance (section 4.6). The magnitude of this non-commercial catch has not been properly assessed, but it is not expected to be comparable to the commercial catch (<10% of total catch).

Stock assessment/Use of performance measures: Substantial information and data are available to assess the greenlip abalone stocks in three management zones. These include (1) a well documented history and management of the fishery; (2) fine scale catch and effort data since 1967; (3) data from commercial catch sampling; (4) detailed, spatially- representative biological data; and (5) fishery-independent surveys at various productive sites (see section 2.5.1). This information is summarised in the respective stock assessment reports, which are cited below.

Most greenlip abalone are landed in the Central and Western Zones (Fig. 11). During the early phase of the fishery in the order of 600-900 tonnes of greenlip abalone were removed from this fishery per year. Since the introduction of TACCs into the three management zones in the mid- to late- 1980s (see Shepherd and Rodda 2001), harvest levels of greenlip abalone have been reduced to around 400 tonnes (Fig. 11).

The most recent stocks assessments on greenlip abalone in the Southern Zone (Mayfield et al 2009), Central Zone (Mayfield et al 2008), Western Zone Region A (Chick et al 2008) and Western Zone Region B (Chick and Mayfield 2006) all suggested that these stocks were fished within sustainable limits. These conclusions were supported by numerous lines of evidence including (1) long-term, stable catches; (2) long-term, significant reductions in fishing effort; (3) a temporally consistent, spatial distribution of catch and effort.

39 DRAFT

Figure 11 Annual shell weight catch of greenlip abalone in the Southern, Central and Western Zones from 1969 to 2008. Data up to 1978 are not validated and those of July-December 2008 are provisional. The red, blue and pink arrow indicates implementation of TACCs in the Western, Southern and Central Zones, respectively.

Given the vulnerable nature of this species to overfishing, it was considered that the South Australian Abalone Fishery could have a severe (C3) impact on the stocks but the likelihood of this occurring was considered only a possible (L4) outcome given the management controls in place. This resulted inappropriate a risk rate of MODERATE (12).

Indicators Total catch Total effort Fishery-dependent CPUE –log books provides information on the daily catch (kg) and amount of effort (hours fished) expended in each fishing area by each diver. From these data, the CPUE (kg/hr) is determined. Fishery-independent Index of abundance – direct surveys of the most productive areas are completed to determine whether abundances have been affected by fishing or other environmental influence.

Performance measures To be determined

40 DRAFT

Blacklip abalone Objective Ensure the blacklip abalone resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors by maintaining the spawning stock of abalone at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the fishery on the blacklip abalone (Haliotis rubra) resource (MODERATE)

Like greenlip abalone, blacklip abalone are also characterised by slow growth, limited recruitment and densely aggregated, self-recruiting meta-populations. The lack of connectivity among meta-populations makes them susceptible to localised depletions, particularly as diving is highly selective in targeting abalone and so is capable of having a significant impact on the stocks of this species.

To minimise the risk of overfishing, the blacklip abalone fishery is managed through both input controls (maximum of 35 licences) and output controls (quotas and size limits). The primary tool used to control the harvest of blacklip abalone is TACCs. The TACCs set in each management zone is reviewed annually and can be adjusted to change the total catch as required.

Blacklip abalone are also taken by the recreational sector and by illegal fishing. The magnitude of this non-commercial catch has not been properly assessed, but it is not expected to be comparable to the commercial catch (<20% of total catch).

Stock assessment/Use of performance measures: Substantial information and data are available to assess the blacklip abalone stocks in the three management zones. This includes (1) a well documented history and management of the fishery; (2) fine scale catch and effort data since 1968/69; (3) data from commercial catch sampling; (4) detailed, spatially-representative biological data; and (5) fishery-independent surveys at various productive sites (see section 2.5.1). This information is summarised in the respective stock assessment reports, which are cited below.

Presently, 65% of the blacklip abalone landed in South Australia is taken by the commercial fishery from the Western Zone. Another 30% is landed in the Southern Zone, with the remainder landed in the Central Zone (Fig. 12). Prior to the implementation of TACCs in the mid- to late-1980s, the annual catch of blacklip abalone ranged from 200 tonnes to over 500 tonnes. Since then, harvest levels of blacklip abalone have been set around 470 tonnes (Fig. 12).

41 DRAFT

Figure 12 Annual catch levels and catch rates of blacklip abalone in the Southern, Central and Western Zones from 1967 to 2008. Data up to 1978 are not validated and those of July-December 2008 are provisional. The red, blue and pink arrow indicates implementation of TACCs in the Western, Southern and Central Zones, respectively.

The most recent assessment of blacklip stocks in the Southern Zone (Mayfield et al 2009), Central Zone (Mayfield et al 2008), Western Zone Region A (Chick et al 2008) and Western Zone Region B (Chick and Mayfield 2006) all suggested that these stocks were fished within sustainable limits. These conclusions were supported by numerous lines of evidence including (1) long- term, stable catches; (2) long-term, significant reductions in fishing effort; (3) a temporally consistent, spatial distribution of catch and effort; and (4) spatially- consistent increases in CPUE.

Given the vulnerable nature of this species to overfishing, it was considered that the South Australian Abalone Fishery could have a severe (C3) impact on the blacklip abalone stocks but the likelihood of this occurring was considered only a possible (L4) outcome given the management controls in place. This resulted inappropriate a risk rate of MODERATE (12).

42 DRAFT

Indicators Total catch Total effort Fishery-dependent CPUE –log books provides information on the daily catch (kg) and amount of effort (hours fished) expended in each fishing area by each diver. From these data, the CPUE (kg/hr) is determined. Fishery-independent Index of abundance – direct surveys of the most productive areas are completed to determine whether abundances have been affected by fishing or other environmental influence.

Performance measures To be determined

4.1.2. Secondary Species

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on secondary species (Haliotis cyclobates, Haliotis scalaris and Haliotis roei) (NEGLIGIBLE).

Three species of abalone, namely Haliotis cyclobates, Haliotis scalaris and Haliotis roei, can be taken by the South Australian Abalone Fishery. As they rarely reach the legal minimum size limit of 130 mm SL, they are seldom landed by the fishery.

With insignificant numbers of these three species landed each year, it is likely (L6) that the South Australian Abalone Fishery is having a negligible (C0) impact on secondary species, resulting in a risk rating of NEGLIGIBLE (0).

4.1.3. By-catch

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on by-catch species (NEGLIGIBLE).

The South Australian Abalone Fishery is a selective fishery, using hand- collection of abalone. Because of this, by-catch is limited to the unavoidable removal of encrusting and boring organisms such as limpets and algae that use the shell of the abalone as habitat. These organisms are harvested together with the abalone on which they reside.

The potential environmental risk to these commensal species varies with location. In the Central and Western Zones, the risk is negligible because the abalone meat is removed from the shell at sea (by shucking) and the empty shells are discarded overboard in the vicinity from where they were harvested. By contrast, most of the abalone landed in the Southern Zone are sent to the processors whole. As ~98% of the catch from the Southern Zone is comprised of blacklip abalone, the commensal species found on this species of abalone shell would most likely be at most risk.

43 DRAFT

In the Central and Western Zones, the abalone meat is removed from the shell (by shucking) at sea and packed on ice. The empty shells are discarded overboard and returned to the substrate in the vicinity from where they were harvested.

Even for commensal species found on blacklip abalone, the overall consequence on the populations of these encrusting organisms is likely (L6) to be negligible (C0) due to the following: Abalone generally settle on hard substrates within dynamic benthic environments and are targeted by fish and other predators, which make their shells an insecure habitat for settling invertebrates;

Even though invertebrates foul abalone, there is no indication that abalone shells are a more preferred habitat for invertebrate settlement;

Of the species that do settle on the shell of abalone, they most probably do not use the abalone‟s shell exclusively as a substratum. As such, the fishery only affects a very small proportion of these organisms‟ total habitat; and

The fishing practices and management of abalone stocks ensures that many abalone are not commercially fished. By having this large percentage of the population remain on even the most heavily targeted ground there is sufficient abalone shell available to provide habitat for sessile invertebrates.

This resulted in a risk rate of NEGLIGIBLE (0).

44 DRAFT

4.2. Non-Retained Species

Non Retained Species

Direct Interaction but no Capture

Threatened and Other Protected species

Great White shark Eels

Pinnipeds Southern Rock Lobster

Dolphins Octopus/cuttlefish

Sygnathids Sea Birds

Algae/Kelp

Family Elasmobranch

Figure 13 Component tree for the non- retained species in the South Australian Abalone Fishery.

4.2.1. Direct Interaction but No Capture

ERA Risk Rating: Interactions with non-retained species (NEGLIGIBLE).

A number of threatened, endangered and protected species (TEPS) occur in the fishery area, including seals and sea lions, sharks, and leafy sea dragons. Current management arrangements require abalone licence holders to complete a TEPS interaction logbook each time an interaction occurs with a TEPS species and provide the returns to SARDI Aquatic Sciences with their monthly catch logbook returns. A review of these returns since this logbook was introduced in 2007 indicates that there are minimal interactions with TEPS species in this fishery. The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids mortality of, or injuries to, endangered, threatened or protected species and avoids or minimises impacts on threatened ecological communities.

Some abalone divers carry a powerhead to protect themselves against potentially fatal attacks by Great White sharks. Industry has reported that since the inception of the abalone fishery in the late 1960s, a powerhead has only been used once by an abalone diver to kill a Great White shark. Abalone divers also interact with a variety of other species whilst harvesting abalone, including eels, southern rock lobster, octopus, sea birds, algae, as well as small sharks, rays and skates. Since interactions or capture of these species are rare, it was considered likely (L6) that the South Australian Abalone Fishery would have a negligible (C0) impact on non-retained species. This results in a risk rating of NEGLIGIBLE (0).

45 DRAFT

4.3. General Ecosystem

General ecosystem effects of the fishery

Impacts on trophic structure Habitat disturbance Broader environment Disease

removal of abalone Anchoring Air quality

Dive equipment Impact on predators Greenhouse gas emissions Beach launching Impact on competitors Water quality

Discarding (shells and guts) Rubbish/ debris

Bilge discharge

Hydraulic oil (for cages)

Figure 14 Component tree for the General Ecosystem Effects of the South Australian Abalone Fishery

4.3.1. Impacts on Trophic Structure

Removal of Abalone (Impact on predators) ERA Risk Rating: Impact on predators by the removal of abalone (LOW)

The removal of abalone through fishing could decrease the amount of food available for species that feed on abalone such as rays, starfish, octopus, crabs, southern rock lobster and reef fish such as wrasse. The risk of an impact on these species from reducing the amount of abalone in the ecosystem was considered to be low for two reasons. First, none of these predators feeds exclusively on abalone and second, the total tonnage of abalone removed by the fishery is relatively small compared to overall size of abalone stocks throughout southern Australia.

Based on these two reasons, it was therefore considered that the South Australian Abalone Fishery could have a minor (C2) impact on predators, but the likelihood of this occurring was considered only a rare (L2) outcome given the management controls in place. This resulted in a risk rating of LOW (4).

46 DRAFT

Removal of Abalone (Impact on competitors) ERA Risk Rating: Impact on competitors by the removal of abalone (LOW)

Abalone are benthic herbivores that tend to feed more on drift algae rather than grazing attached plants (Shepherd 2008). In areas where they are highly abundant, it has been suggested that the removal of abalone can precipitate outbreaks of other dominant grazers such as sea urchins (Andrew et al. 1998). A direct link between the removal of abalone and the formation of urchin barrens in South Australia is yet to be conclusively proven.

Determining what impact the removal of abalone in the ecosystem by fishing has on other grazing herbivores is difficult because:

Abalone are one of many herbivorous algae consumers that exist on the rocky reefs of South Australia and their levels vary dramatically from natural variations, as do the other consumers; and

The total tonnage of abalone removed by the fishery is relatively small compared to overall size of abalone stocks throughout southern Australia.

It was therefore considered that the South Australian Abalone Fishery could have a minor (C1) impact on grazing competitors, but the likelihood of this occurring was considered only an unlikely (L3) outcome given the management controls in place. This resulted in a risk rating of LOW (3).

Discarding ERA Risk Rating: Impact on ecosystem due to discarding (NEGLIGIBLE)

There is no discarding in the Southern Zone, as the whole abalone is sent to the processors. In the Central and Western Zones, abalone meat is removed from the shell at sea (by shucking) and the empty shells are discarded overboard in the vicinity from where they were harvested. During rough conditions, shells can be shucked and discarded in small discrete sheltered areas leading to an accumulation of shell. Such „throwback‟ patches can artificially increase the amount of abalone shell and gut in the area.

The minimal increase in nutrient loadings as a result of such discards is likely (L6) to have a negligible (C0) impact on any ecological community, resulting in a risk rating of NEGLIGIBLE (0).

47 DRAFT

4.3.2. Habitat Disturbance

ERA Risk Rating: Habitat disturbance by the fishery (NEGLIGIBLE)

The impact to the environment, through damage to the habitat by impact from the diver and diver equipment was considered to be at most rare (L2), with the possibility of causing a negligible (C0) impact. This results in a risk rating of NEGLIGIBLE (0), which was appropriate for the following reasons. First, the relatively benign method of using an abalone iron to remove the abalone from the substrate results in very little interaction with the environment. Second, divers operate above the substrate, not making contact with the bottom except to remove the abalone. Divers generally avoid contact with the bottom because it may cause turbidity, which reduces visibility and therefore their ability to locate abalone. In addition, divers have deck tenders to monitor their lines of their surface supplied air units and assist in ensuring that contact with the substrate does not damage equipment and hinder diving operations. This, in turn, ensures that the substrate is not negatively impacted.

Third, the possibility of direct disturbance to the substrate through the anchoring of dive tenders is also low. This is because the common practice is for divers to operate with a “live boat” (i.e. not anchoring and following the diver) in the Central and Western Zones, which greatly increases the ground that they cover. In the Southern Zone, there is anchoring, but it is usually done in nearby sandy areas to avoid „hook ups‟ on hard bottom where fishing takes place. Plus, the number of fishing vessels in the Southern Zone (six) is trivial when compared to that of the recreational sector and other commercial fisheries. It is therefore considered that the impact of anchoring by the Southern Zone abalone fishery will be extremely minor.

Fourth, vessels are removed from the water each day, meaning that there is little chance of transposition of hull organisms or a build-up and disposal of bilge discharge. Finally, although some operators in more remote and underdeveloped areas have to launch their vessels from the beach, this practice is rare as most ports of launch have fully developed boat launching sites.

4.3.3. Broader Environment

ERA Risk Rating: Impacts on the broader environment by the fishery (NEGLIGIBLE)

Most of the 35 abalone licence holders have vessels less than 10 m in length and spend approximately 60 days at sea harvesting abalone. Given this, the impact of greenhouse emissions released by the abalone fishery is negligible.

Short (generally daily) trips are undertaken and the trivial amount of rubbish or debris generated by fishing activities is stored on board the vessels for disposal on return to port. Boat operators in this fishery do not discharge the contents of the bilge at sea.

48 DRAFT

Perhaps the biggest threat to the broader environment by this fishery is the occasional spillage of hydraulic oil for the handful operators that utilise shark cages. To minimise this threat, the Abalone Industry Association of South Australia Incorporated has advocated the use of biodegradable oil for all shark cages.

It is likely (L6) that the South Australian Abalone Fishery is having a negligible (C0) impact on the broader environment, resulting in a risk rating of NEGLIGIBLE (0).

4.3.4. Diseases

ERA Risk Rating: Impacts on the general ecosystem by disease (LOW)

Several hypotheses have been proposed on how AVG propagated so quickly through the Victorian marine environment. One commonly proposed hypothesis was that diseased abalone was used as bait or berley. Another was the virus was unknowingly spread by someone coming into direct contact with the mucus of a diseased abalone and then transporting it onto uncontaminated grounds. Subsequently, all activities that contact the type of bottom where abalone can be found are considered high likelihood of contacting/collecting the virus. The following activities are considered viable long range vectors for this disease: diving (especially abalone fishing as there is direct contact with abalone) shore fishing netting beachcombing surfing swimming using abalone as bait/burley launching/retrieval pots or anchors

If there is direct contact of diseased abalone, the movement of abalone dive gear provides a mechanism for diseases to be transported beyond its natural range. In extreme circumstances, this gear could provide a vector for disease.

Operators in the South Australia Abalone fishery are fully aware of the potential impact of diseases such as AVG and Perkinsus. For this reason, they know to sterilise their equipment if they were to undertake any of the activities listed above in high risk areas such as in Victoria. Furthermore, there is emergency response plan currently in place to handle this risk (see section 4.7).

The impacts on the general ecosystem by disease transferred by the abalone fishery were considered to be rare (L2) with a severe (C3) consequence. This results in a risk rating of LOW (6).

49 DRAFT

4.4. Community Wellbeing

Community

Fishing Industry Dependent Communities Non-dependent communities

Profit Regional Centres City Centres

Employment Economic value Economic value OHS Social value Relationship with community Employment

Asset Value GReg P & GStateP Health/ food

Lifestyle Re-Investment Research/ Knowledge

Social value Infrastructure

Social capital

Identity

Health/ food

Infrastructure

Attitude of recreational fishers

Figure 15 Component tree for the contribution of the South Australian Abalone Fishery to Community/Regional Socio-Economic Wellbeing.

4.4.1. Fishing Industry

ERA Risk Rating: The importance of profit, employment, OH&S, relationship with the community, asset value and lifestyle to the fishing industry (MODERATE)

Profit One of the key factors affecting the economic viability of the fishery is profit. In a recent report on the Economic Indicators for the South Australian Abalone Fishery for the financial year of 2007/08, there was a slight decrease in boat gross margin in 2007/08 ($585,000) compared to previous years mainly due to the decline in boat gross income in 2007/08 (EconSearch 2009). Boat gross margin is often used a basic measure of profit in this fishery and is calculated by separating variable and fixed costs from total cash costs. It assumes that capital has no alternative use and that as fishing activity varies there is no change in capital or fixed costs (EconSearch 2009).

50 DRAFT

Employment The provision of employment to people directly involved in the fishery is considered very important by the fishing industry.

OH&S The safety of licence holders, divers and deckhand during fishing activities is paramount for those involved in the fishery. Legislative requirements ensure that all works places (including the abalone fishery) are conducted safely for both employees and operators.

Relationship with the community A positive relationship with the community is considered very important by the fishing industry. Political lobbying can have significant impacts on the operations of the commercial fishery and the fishing community. For instance, the blue crab fishery was denied access to the Adelaide Metropolitan waters in 2005 as a result of interactions with the community and the recreational sector. Building and maintaining positive relationships with the broader community were identified as being important for the fishery. The fishery operators are actively managing their activities to achieve this objective (e.g. by recommending all provision, such as fuel, food and ice are bought in the local community where fishing occurs).

Asset value Abalone fishery licences and quota entitlements are fully transferable. The importance of maintain the value of assets was rated highly by the fishing industry. Assets may include licences, quota entitlements, vessels, businesses, fishing equipment, etc.

Lifestyle A major concern of the fishing industry is to ensure that the lifestyle abalone licence holders are accustomed to be maintained at current levels. In the past, the abalone fishery has been a very profitable fishery with few operators and a high value product. Some operators consider themselves lifestyle fishers while others consider it more of a business. The impact on „lifestyle‟ as a result of changes in the fishery may be considered a threat by those operators who particularly value this lifestyle element.

Indicators and Performance measures To be determined

51 DRAFT

4.4.2. Dependent Communities

Regional centres (economic value) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the Abalone fishery on the economic value of the community (LOW)

Estimates of the economic impact generated in 2007/08 by the abalone industry in the Eyre region is outlined in Table 10. From this table, it is clear that the South Australian Abalone Fishery in important to the Eyre region. For instance, of the total household income contribution of $17.9 million in South Australia by the fishery, $13.0 million was in the Eyre region. Furthermore, the total Abalone fishing industry related contribution to GSP in South Australia was $40.8 million, of which $32.7 million was in the Eyre region.

Table 10 The economic impact of the South Australian Abalone Fishery in the Eyre region, 2007/08 (source: Econseach 2009).

Output Employment a Household Income Contribution to GRP Sector ($m) % (fte jobs) % ($m) % ($m) % Direct effects Fishing 31.0 69.0% 90 50.5% 9.2 70.9% 25.6 78.9% Processing 2.1 4.7% 9 5.1% 0.4 3.0% 0.6 1.8% Transport 0.4 0.8% 2 1.1% 0.1 1.0% 0.2 0.6% Retail 0.0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Food services 0.0 0.0% 0 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Capital expenditure b 0.4 1.0% 4 2.4% 0.2 1.2% 0.2 0.7% Total Direct c 34.0 74.5% 106 56.8% 9.9 74.9% 26.6 81.3% Flow-on effects Trade 2.1 4.7% 27 14.8% 0.8 6.2% 1.0 3.1% Manufacturing 1.1 2.5% 5 2.8% 0.2 1.6% 0.3 1.0% Business Services 0.9 1.9% 6 3.1% 0.3 2.4% 0.4 1.3% Transport 0.6 1.3% 3 1.8% 0.2 1.6% 0.3 0.9% Other Sectors 6.3 14.0% 33 18.3% 1.6 12.2% 3.8 11.7% Total Flow-on c 11.1 24.6% 73 40.8% 3.1 24.0% 5.8 18.0% Total c 45.0 100.0% 179 100.0% 13.0 100.0% 32.4 100.0% Total/Direct 1.3 - 1.7 - 1.3 - 1.2 - Total/Tonne $50,600 - 0.20 - $14,600 - $36,400 - a Full-time equivalent jobs. Direct employment in the fishing sector was comprised of 78 full-time and 37 part-time jobs, that is, 115 jobs in aggregate. b Capital expenditure includes expenditure on boats, fishing gear and equipment, sheds and buildings, motor vehicles and other equipment. c Totals may not sum due to rounding.

There fishery has a clear value to the dependent communities of the Eyre region. However, it was considered likely (L6) that it would only have a minor (C1) economic impact, in terms of employment and economic value, if this fishery was to relocate from this region. This resulted in an overall rating of LOW (6).

52 DRAFT

It must be noted that the removal of the abalone fishery would have a much larger impact in much smaller communities like Streaky Bay and Elliston.

Regional centres (social value) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the Abalone fishery on the social value of regional centres (LOW)

The components of social value that were considered for the risk assessment were health/food, identity and social capital.

The main regional areas associated with the abalone fishery in South Australia are Port Lincoln, Streaky Bay and Elliston in the Western Zone, Mount Gambier in the Southern Zone and Port Hughes and Kangaroo Island in the Central Zone. Since virtually all of the abalone caught by this fishery is exported to Japan, China, and other parts of Asia, it is extremely unlikely that any product would be sold and consumed in the regional area where the fishery operates. For this reason, there is little food or health benefit from the fishery in these regional areas.

Some of the smaller regional communities such as Streaky Bay and Elliston would derive an „identity‟ from the operation of this fishery and there would be significant social capital benefits. For example, the abalone divers often provide sponsorship to local football teams etc.

The impact on social value of regional communities if the fishery did not exist or relocated was considered likely (L6) to be minor (C1), resulting in a risk rating of LOW (6).

Regional centres (Infrastructure) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the Abalone fishery on the infrastructure of regional centres (LOW)

Anecdotal evidence from the survey suggested that profits generated in the abalone industry have been, and continue to be, used to finance new ventures, particularly in small regional centres such as Streaky Bay and Elliston. The 2009 licence-holder survey indicated that substantial local investment has been made in new ventures and existing businesses or assets in recent years. The average annual investment expenditures in new and existing enterprises are reported in Table 11. Much of this expenditure is in regional centres.

53 DRAFT

Table 11 Average annual regional investment expenditures by licence holders in the South Australian Abalone Fishery, 2003/04 to 2007/08 (source: Econseach 2009).

Existing Businesses/ New Enterprises (e.g. Assets (e.g. motels, aquaculture, Total farms, shares, real horticulture, property estate) development) ($m) ($m) ($m) Estimated Average Annual Expenditure per 0.129 0.104 0.233 Licence Holder a

Estimated Aggregate Annual Expenditure for 4.499 3.656 8.155 b the Abalone Fishery a Based on survey respondents‟ estimated investment expenditures over the 5 years, 2003/04 to 2007/08. b These estimates are based on a sample (15) of licence holders. Given the „lumpy‟ nature of investment expenditure they may or may not be representative of all licence holders.

Specific examples of investment in new infrastructure in small regional areas include the building of fish processing factories in both Streaky Bay and Elliston. If the abalone fishery ceased to exist, these processing factories would most likely close, disadvantaging a host of other commercial fisheries such as the MSF, which are currently using them. In larger regional communities, the contribution by the abalone fishery to new infrastructure is minor compare to that of the much larger recreational and other commercial fisheries sectors.

It is likely (L6) that there would be a minor (C1) impact on infrastructure of regional communities if the fishery did not exist or relocated, resulting in a risk rating of LOW (6). Again, it must be noted that the removal of the abalone fishery would have a much larger impact in much smaller communities like Streaky Bay and Elliston.

Regional centres (Attitudes recreational fishers) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the abalone fishery on the attitudes of recreational fishers in regional centres (LOW)

In other fisheries of South Australia such as the MSF, there are often conflicts between the recreational sector and commercial sectors over access to the resource. Such conflicts are not as prevalent for abalone since only 1% of the catch taken by the recreational sector. In spite of this, the abalone industry still tries hard to co-exist in the regional areas where the recreational fishery overlaps with the commercial fishery by actively avoiding areas where there are recreational divers.

54 DRAFT

It was considered possible (L4) that the attitudes of recreational fishers could have a moderate (C2) impact on the abalone fishery in regional centres. This results in a risk rating of LOW (8).

4.4.3. Non-dependent Communities

The South Australian Abalone Fishery is a niche fishery with few operators and a high value product. Other than those directly and indirectly employed by the fishery, the main impacts of an interruption to the flow of benefits from the fishery to the community would be export related (primarily a lack of availability of product to Asia).

City centres (economic values) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the abalone fishery on the economic value of the broader South Australian community (NEGLIGIBLE)

Estimates of the economic impact generated in 2007/08 by the Abalone fishery in South Australia is shown below in Table 12. The value of output generated directly in South Australia by this fishery summed to $31.0 million in 2007/08.

In the same year, this fishery was responsible for the direct employment of around 90 full-time equivalents (fte) and downstream activities created employment of around 20 fte jobs state-wide. Flow-on business activity was estimated to generate a further 146 fte jobs state-wide (73 fte jobs regionally). These state-wide jobs were concentrated in the trade (42), business services (16) and manufacturing (15) sectors (Table 12).

Personal income of $9.2 million was earned in the fishing sector (wages of employees and estimated drawings by owner/operators) and $1.1 million in downstream activities in South Australia.

An additional $7.5 million was earned by wage earners in other businesses in the state as a result of fishing and associated downstream activities. The total household income contribution from the fishery was $17.9 million in South Australia.

In 2007/08, total Abalone fishing industry related contributions to Gross State Product in South Australia was $40.8 million, $25.6 million generated by fishing directly, $1.6 million generated by downstream activities and $13.7 million generated in other sectors of the state economy (Table 12).

55 DRAFT

Table 12 The economic impact of the South Australian Abalone Fishery South Australia, 2007/08 (source: Econseach 2009).

Output Employment a Household Income Contribution to GSP Sector ($m) % (fte jobs) % ($m) % ($m) % Direct effects Fishing 31.0 48.9% 90 35.4% 9.2 51.7% 25.6 62.6% Processing 2.1 3.3% 6 2.4% 0.3 1.7% 0.5 1.2% Transport 1.6 2.5% 7 2.7% 0.5 2.9% 0.8 1.9% Retail 0.0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Food services 0.2 0.3% 2 0.6% 0.1 0.3% 0.1 0.2% Capital expenditure b 0.7 1.2% 5 1.8% 0.2 1.1% 0.3 0.7% Total Direct c 35.7 55.1% 110 41.2% 10.3 56.6% 27.2 65.9% Flow-on effects Trade 3.9 6.2% 42 16.2% 1.5 8.3% 1.8 4.5% Manufacturing 5.1 8.0% 15 5.9% 0.7 4.2% 1.2 2.9% Business Services 2.9 4.6% 16 6.4% 1.1 6.0% 1.4 3.4% Transport 1.3 2.1% 6 2.3% 0.4 2.4% 0.6 1.6% Other Sectors 14.5 22.9% 67 26.1% 3.8 21.4% 8.6 21.0% Total Flow-on c 27.8 43.8% 146 57.0% 7.5 42.3% 13.7 33.4% Total c 63.4 100.0% 256 100.0% 17.9 100.0% 40.8 100.0% Total/Direct 1.8 - 2.3 - 1.7 - 1.5 -

Total/Tonne $71,300 - 0.29 - $20,000 - $45,900 - a Full-time equivalent jobs. Direct employment in the fishing sector was comprised of 78 full-time and 37 part-time jobs, that is, 115 jobs in aggregate. b Capital expenditure includes expenditure on boats, fishing gear and equipment, sheds and buildings, motor vehicles and other equipment. c Totals may not sum due to rounding.

In the absence of the fishery, there would be indirect impacts to the city centres through product unavailability and job losses in the trade, business services, manufacturing, processing and transport industries. Compared to South Australia‟s total Gross State Product of almost $71 billion in 2007/08, the economic value of the abalone fishery was considered likely (L6) to have a negligible (C0) impact on the broader South Australian community. This resulted in an overall rating of NEGLIGIBLE (0).

56 DRAFT

City centres (Social value-Research / knowledge) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the abalone fishery on the research/knowledge of the broader South Australian community (LOW)

Research supported by the abalone fishery has made a significant contribution to the knowledge and understanding of the abalone resource. It has also greatly improved the understanding of temperate rocky reefs in southern Australia.

Abalone divers have also contributed to other independent research projects with the collection of samples, help with underwater filming and supply of specialist information. For instance, several abalone divers are helping shark scientists monitor the distribution of Great White sharks in the Western Zone by noting where and when they encounter this type of shark whilst harvesting abalone.

The vessels of the abalone fishery have also been utilized as research platforms and to help in the search and rescue of recreational and other commercial fishers.

It was considered that research/knowledge would be impacted in a minor (C1) way on occasions (L5) in the absence of the abalone fishery, resulting in a risk rating of LOW (5).

57 DRAFT

4.5. Aboriginal Community

To be completed

Indigenous Community

Economics Employment Community Viability Cultural Values

Traditional Fishing

Access/Allocation

Continuation of Activities

Important Species

Figure 16 Component tree for the Indigenous community of the South Australian Abalone Fishery

58 DRAFT

4.6. Governance

Governance

Government Industry Others (NGOs etc)

PIRSA Fisheries Council Other Agencies Codes of Conduct NGO Effectiveness Communication/Participation Participation Policy & Management Management plan SA Govt-DEH Industry Association

Allocation Comm DEWHA Memo of Understanding Management Effectiveness AQIS Access Security Consultation Resources Strategic policy Other Research/information Compliance

Illegal fishing

Legal Framework

Consultation

Information Participation Inter-agency coordination

Reporting

Aquaculture

Figure 17 Component tree for the governance of the South Australian Abalone Fishery

This section is not assessed for risks, as per the other sections in this report. Issues identified by stakeholders for either further action or identified current issues are reported on below.

4.6.1. Government

PIRSA-Policy and Management (Resources) Objective Manage the abalone resource in an efficient and cost-effective manner, in line with the Government‟s cost-recovery policy.

The effectiveness of management is largely dependent on the amount of resources available for policy, research and compliance. In 2008/09, the annual research and compliance budget for the abalone fishery was $1.2 million and $1 million, respectively.

59 DRAFT

The amount of resources directed at compliance concerned several stakeholders present at the workshop. Effective compliance is vital to ensure that the quotas set are being adhered to and illegal fishing is kept to a minimum. The latter is particularly important because it could affect the sustainability of the entire fishery. For the last 5 years, a total of 1069 days have been spent annually on the compliance of the South Australian Abalone Fishery. The compliance program consists of a mix of sea and land patrols, aerial and covert surveillance, and education.

Industry has proposed a specialist task force be formed to address the illegal catch of abalone. The management costs of all fisheries in South Australia, including that for compliance of the South Australian Abalone Fishery, are fully-cost recovered.

There were two main issues raised at the workshop concerning resources. The first was the apparent lack of competition for research and compliance services undertaken by SARDI Aquatic Sciences and PIRSA Fisheries Compliance, respectively. The second revolved around splitting the costs for research and compliance services with the public to better reflect the public benefit of research and compliance activities funded by industry. For instance, some of the research undertaken by funds recovered from the industry provided data on temperate reef ecology, which is a benefit to the public and not just the abalone fishery.

PIRSA Fisheries Compliance will continue to provide high standard compliance service within budgetary and resourcing constraints. The recent completion of a compliance risk assessment will enable compliance resources to be more efficiently and strategically focussed. These changes should reduce the impacts of illegal activity.

Indicators To be determined

Performance measures To be determined

PIRSA-Policy and Management (Compliance-Illegal fishing) Objective Manage the abalone resource in an efficient and cost-effective manner, in line with the Government‟s cost-recovery policy.

Effective compliance is vital to the sustainability of abalone stocks and continued profitability of the commercial fishery. PIRSA Compliance spends around $1.0 million (1069 days) on enforcement and compliance monitoring in the South Australian Abalone Fishery, consisting of a mix of sea patrols, covert surveillance, and education. Despite this, some illegal abalone fishing is undoubtedly still occurring. As in most fisheries, it is difficult to quantify the illegal catch in any one year.

60 DRAFT

Annual compliance risk assessments consider illegal fishing activities in the fishery and guide compliance activities and management decision-making. During 2005, Fisheries Compliance identified, through information and other reports, that 7,340 individual abalone may have been taken illegally. In addition to this, information reports also indicated that approximately 2,365 kg (meat weight) of abalone may have been illegally harvested within the Western Zone (Chick et al. 2006). Since Fisheries Compliance would not have been have notified of all reports alleging that abalone theft had occurred within the Western Zone during 2005, the actual extent of illegal take is likely to have been higher. By attributing an estimate of 140 g to the meat weight of an illegally harvested whole abalone, the estimated total illegal catch of abalone in the Western Zone equates to ~3.4 tonnes meat weight (Chick et al. 2006).

The implementation of systems for monitoring the TACC combined with the prior reporting system has reduced opportunities for the disposal of illegal catches. Regardless, methods to quantify illegal catch levels, and the biological and economic impact of illegal fishing, have been identified as a strategy in the management plan and strategic research plan.

PIRSA Compliance will continue to provide effective compliance service within resourcing constraints. The recent completion of a compliance risk assessment will better direct resources and increase the effectiveness of compliance activities.

Indicators Degree of understanding of rules governing operation of the fishery by licensees and the broader fishing community.

The levels of compliance with these rules, including the estimated level of illegal activity.

Performance measures To be determined

PIRSA-Consultation (Inter-agency coordination) Objective Manage the abalone resource in an efficient and cost-effective manner, in line with the Government‟s cost-recovery policy.

There is a perception in the abalone industry that communication between different government agencies may be occasionally stifled and this may be impacting on the efficient management of this resource.

PIRSA Fisheries considers that mechanisms for inter-agency communication and input to the management of the abalone fishery are well established and functioning effectively. This is illustrated in part by the current ERA process, where a broad range of fishery stakeholders have been actively engaged.

61 DRAFT

The management of the abalone fishery is based around a robust consultation and communication process. The new Fisheries Management Act 2007 contains certain requirements with regard to consultation that must be undertaken in the course of managing the fishery. To ensure these requirements are being met, a communication protocol has been written to improve the flow of management information to stakeholders.

PIRSA will continue to work with other agencies and industry members to raise awareness about management issues relevant to the fishery. This will help ensure that the community understands and supports the management approaches adopted. This information will be widely distributed via the PIRSA Fisheries website (www.pir.sa.gov.au).

PIRSA-Consultation (Aquaculture) Objective Manage the impact of aquaculture on the South Australian Abalone Fishery.

South Australia‟s abalone aquaculture industry has steadily increased its production levels since 1997/98. It now produces around 178 tonnes of abalone annually, valued at approximately $7.8 million. Most of the abalone farmed in South Australia is greenlip abalone and comes from farms located on Kangaroo Island, Port Lincoln and Streaky Bay. The majority of the State‟s cultured abalone is currently being harvested at the end of its third year, at a size of approximately 70mm (or 50g in shell weight).

On commercial abalone farms, selective breeding is being used to improve the quality and production efficiency of farmed abalone. Selective breeding uses targeted matings to increase the frequency of individuals with a desirable commercial trait in farm stocks, such as faster growth, better survival, yield and quality of farmed abalone.

Several pilot programs are also currently being undertaken to utilise other waters of the State to culture abalone, with significant interest in marine grow- out sites. In addition, one mobile abalone farming system is currently licensed to operate in South Australian waters.

The steady development of abalone aquaculture in South Australia raises a number of issues in relation to its potential interaction with commercial and recreational fisheries and the broader community. These include:

1. Risk of disease introduction or increase in the wild fishery. It is possible that non endemic, pathogenic organisms may be introduced into an area by the translocation of abalone from other areas. Due to the higher animal density and subsequent stress of a culture situation, levels of disease causing organisms can increase. A culture environment may therefore act as a reservoir of pathogens which could increase the level of pathogens in the wild.

62 DRAFT

2. Risk to the genetic integrity of the wild fishery by the introduction of new genetic material and a reduction in the heterogeneity (diversity) of existing genetic material.

3. Compliance issues. The “laundering” of illegally caught wild stock through an aquaculture operation is a risk to the management of wild abalone stocks. Laundering avenues include farmers on-growing illegally caught wild stock or wild animals (especially undersize) being passed off as farmed stock.

4. Resource sharing (Stock and Water). Commercial fishery participants have raised issues of concern with respect to the take of wild stock for broodstock or trial purposes. Whilst the requirements for abalone broodstock are only in the order of several hundred animals per locality and several thousand animals overall, the issue of aquaculturists gaining access to wild stock is one that requires more consultation and consideration.

Indicators and Performance measures To be determined

Other agencies (Commonwealth-DEWHA) Objective Manage the impact DEWHA has on the South Australian Abalone Fishery.

The management arrangements for the South Australian Abalone Fishery are assessed against the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) every 5 years by DEWHA.

If this fishery is considered to be managed in an ecologically sustainable way and its operation is consistent with the objects of Part 13A of the EPBC Act, the South Australian Abalone Fishery is provided with a five-year exemption from the export controls of the Act. If not, DEWHA has the authority to revoke this exemption. Any cancellation of this exemption would devastate the profitability of the abalone fishery because almost all the product is exported to Asia.

63 DRAFT

Other agencies (AQIS) Objective Manage the impact AQIS has on the South Australian Abalone Fishery.

The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) insists on compliance with Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (ASQAP) for all shellfish growing areas wishing to export shellfish outside of Australia for human consumption. This includes wild caught as well as farmed shellfish, but at this stage is limited to those shellfish which pose most risk to consumers – the bivalve or filter feeding molluscs. Bivalves or filter feeders such as oysters, mussels, scallops, cockles and other shellfish are high risk because they have the ability to concentrate bacteria, viruses, biotoxins, heavy metals, chemicals and other deleterious substances in their digestive tract, on to the surface of their gills, or in their flesh, from the surrounding seawater.

Although abalone are not filter feeders (they feed on drifting macro-algae) and therefore do not have the ability to concentrate deleterious substances, there are concerns that AQIS will classify abalone as a shellfish which poses a risk to consumers. If this happens, the cost of ensuring that all abalone harvested from South Australian waters meet the strictest national and international guidelines, in regard to food safety, will be borne by the abalone industry. This will significantly increase production costs because it will involve regular monitoring of water and abalone from all the areas from there are harvested.

Indicators and Performance measures To be determined

64 DRAFT

4.7. External Impacts Affecting Performance of the Fishery

External Factors Affecting Performance of the Fishery

Ecological Impacts on the Fishery Impacts of Other Drivers Access

Biophysical environment Human Induced changes Economic Marine Parks

Physical Water Quality Fuel Price

Market Forces Oceanographic Desalination Plant Climate Change Sewerage Demand Temperature Agricultural runoff Market Access Weather Stormwater

Biological Habitat Modification Marketing

Labour Diseases Other fishing costs AVG

Southern Zone

Central Zone

Western Zone

Perkinsus

Western Zone

Central Zone

Southern Zone

Other diseases

Toxic Algae

Exotic Species

Figure 18 Component tree of the external impacts of the South Australian Abalone Fishery

4.7.1. Ecological Impacts on the Fishery

Biophysical environment (Physical) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of physical environment on the abalone fishery (LOW)

There is little information about the specific effects of climate change on marine wildlife. Changes in water temperatures, ocean chemistry, ocean processes and weather patterns associated with climate change may have both direct physiological impacts on abalone and indirect effects through impacts on their habitats. Some impacts can be predicted by examining the biology and ecology of abalone:

Climate change may alter water temperatures and thus, cause changes in the spawning behaviour, reproductive success and growth of abalone, all of which are heavily dependent on water temperature.

65 DRAFT

An increase in the frequency and intensity of severe storms may erode critical habitat and reduce the opportunity to go fishing because of large swells and poor visibility. The latter is particularly relevant to the Southern Zone.

Climate change may also alter ocean circulation patterns and disrupt marine food webs, both of which could have significant impacts on larval recruitment.

Continued increases in sea temperatures may lead to an increasing frequency and intensity of seagrass/algae burning events, reducing the amount and/or quality of food for abalone.

The changes in the biophysical environment may have a beneficial (increased water temperatures promote abalone growth) or detrimental impact on abalone stocks in the long-term. However, these impacts are unlikely to be noticeable in the 5 year lifespan of the management plan.

Therefore, it was considered unlikely (L3) that the physical environment would have a moderate (C2) consequence on the performance of the fishery. This results in a risk rating of LOW (6).

Biophysical environment (Biological-Diseases-AVG) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of AVG on the abalone fishery (MODERATE to HIGH)

Objective To minimise the threat of AVG being introduced and spread in South Australian waters by human activities.

Abalone Viral Ganglioneuritis (AVG) is a disease of abalone that caused devastating losses (up to 90% mortality) to abalone aquaculture and fisheries in Victoria. It was first detected in Victorian abalone aquaculture in December 2005, and subsequently in the wild fishery in May 2006 near Port Fairy.

In Victoria, the disease severely affected the economics and sustainability of the commercial abalone fishery, reducing the catch (quota) by over 50%. Large areas of the Victorian coast were closed to abalone fishing. By 10 November 2007, this disease was confirmed as far east as White‟s Beach, which is only 35-40 km from the South Australian/Victorian border.

The presence of AVG has also been confirmed in a processing plant in Southern Tasmania. If this disease was to enter South Australian waters, it has the potential to severely affect the economics and sustainability of the local commercial abalone fishery. AVG poses a significant threat to abalone stocks, fisheries, aquaculture and the marine environment in South Australia.

66 DRAFT

Very little is known about this virus, including how it infects abalone, how long it survives outside the host and whether or not healthy abalone can carry the virus. There is a risk this virus may spread to South Australia naturally or with the translocations of stock, equipment and abalone products such as abalone gut, which are often used as fishing bait.

AVG is now a notifiable disease in South Australia under the Livestock Act 1997. To mitigate the threat of AVG being introduced and spread in South Australian waters by human activities, PIRSA Fisheries, in consultation with PIRSA Aquaculture, have prepared an emergency response plan in the event of an outbreak in either the aquaculture or wild harvest sectors. The plan provides specific guidelines for PIRSA staff to respond in the event of a suspected or confirmed AVG outbreak.

It has been prepared in accordance with the draft national disease strategy (AQUAVETPLAN) for AVG (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, DAFF) and is underpinned by the Biosecurity Control Measures for AVG: a code of practise (FRDC report 2006/243). It was also developed with consideration of previous outbreaks and fisheries management responses in both Victoria and recently in Tasmania.

PIRSA‟s preparedness has also involved simulation and case scenario exercises, letters and information to licence holders, as well as a public awareness campaign including a webpage, brochures and media releases.

The South Australian/Victorian border represents the eastern most boundary of the Southern Zone for the abalone fishery. Given the close proximity of the disease front to the Southern Zone, and despite the substantial risl management program outlined above, it was possible (L4) that AVG would have a major (C4) consequence on the fishery in the Southern Zone, especially as Victorian boats often cross the border to fish in South Australian waters. This results in a risk rating of HIGH (16).

In the Central and Southern Zones, the risk was only MODERATE (9) because it was unlikely (L3) that this species would have severe (C3) consequence on abalone stocks in these two zones.

Indicators Confirmed presence of AVG in South Australia

Performance measures Refer to PIRSA‟s Disease Response Plan

67 DRAFT

Biophysical environment (Biological-Diseases-Perkinsus) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of Perkinsus on the abalone fishery (NEGLIGIBLE to LOW)

Perkinsus olseni is a parasite found in wild and farmed abalone and other mollusc species such as clams, mussels and pearl oysters in the Asia-Pacific region. Where this parasite occurs, it may proliferate in the foot and mantle tissues of abalone, producing pustules up to 8 mm in diameter. These contain a creamy-brown deposit, which reduces the market value of the abalone and can often result in increased mortality of abalone.

Laboratory experiments have shown that stress such as high temperature (e.g. 20 °C) predisposes both greenlip and blacklip abalone to this parasite. They have also shown that infected blacklip abalone appear to contain and possibly eliminate the infection at 15°C and during the winter (Lester and Davis 1981, Goggin and Lester 1995). With the increasing risk of climate change, even a slight warming of water of 1-2°C may increase the incidence of P. olseni and precipitate a decline in abalone abundance in South Australia.

The management regime has been responsive to threats from Perkinsus in the past. During times of particularly heavy Perkinsus infection in 1996, Region A in the Western Zone was closed to blacklip abalone fishing until research indicated that the level of infection had decreased to less threatening levels. Other measures introduced to reduce the spread of infection and its impact on the fishery included:

No at-sea shucking allowed of blacklip abalone harvested from areas of particularly heavy infection;

The rejection of Perkinsus infected abalone at the discretion of the processor; and

Rejected abalone not counted as part of the quota.

The latter two measures are still currently used.

Compared to rest of South Australia, P. olseni is most prevalent in the Western Zone, where the water temperature is warmest. It was therefore likely (L6) that Perkinsus would have a minor (C1) consequence on the fishery in the Western Zone. This results in a risk rating of LOW (6).

In the cooler waters of the Central and Southern Zones, the risk was NEGLIGIBLE (0). This is because it was considered likely (L6) that this species would have negligible (C0) consequence on abalone stocks in these two zones.

68 DRAFT

Biophysical environment (Biological-Exotic species ) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of the introduction of an exotic species on the abalone fishery (LOW)

A review of the available published literature on abalone viral mortalities reveals two syndromes have emerged over the past ~15 years that have impacted multiple abalone species in Australasia (China, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia) with significant losses. One is the abalone herpes-like virus disease AVG, which is known to have affected both subspecies of Haliotis diversicolor (aquatilis and supertexta) in the Dongshan district of Fujian Province in the spring of 1999 (Huang et al. 1999) and Taiwan in 2003 (Chang et al., 2005).

The latter was similar to the outbreak in Haliotis laevegata, H. rubra and hybrids of H. laevegata x H. rubra from Victoria (Hooper et al. 2007). The other has a more sub-acute to chronic course and is known as crack-shell- amyotrophia-virus disease. This disease has been known to affect Haliotis discus discus in Japan and H. discus hannai in China and, to a lesser extent, Haliotis madaka (Momoyama et al. 1999). The gross observations of this latter disease include reduced growth and/or abnormal shell deposition, sub-acute or slow losses with up to 50% mortality in 20 days. Affected abalone lethargic with retracted mantle, abnormal shell deposition often posses a thin, cracked shell.

If the latter was to enter Australia, it could have a devastating impact on abalone stocks, similar to that experienced in Victoria with AVG. The introduction of an exotic species could have a major (C4) consequence on the fishery, but this was remote (L1), resulting in a risk rating of LOW (4).

4.7.2. Human Induced Changes

Water quality (Desalination Plant-Central Zone) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of a desalination plant on the fishery (MODERATE)

Objective To minimise the impact of the desalination plant on abalone stocks in the Central Zone.

BHP Billiton is proposing to build a desalination plant at Whyalla to supply fresh water to its copper-gold-uranium mine at Olympic Dam in the state's north. With a likely completion date of 2012, this desalination plant will pour huge quantities of wastewater into the shallow, confined upper areas of Spencer Gulf. The 300 megalitres per day of wastewater that are expected to be returned to the gulf will have a salt content of about 65 grams per litre, roughly 50% more than the surrounding water.

69 DRAFT

Because hypersaline water is denser than normal seawater and does not dissipate readily and evenly into the water that surrounds it, releasing this water into the shallow waters of the upper Spencer Gulf will result in pools of unnaturally saline water spreading across the sea floor.

Tiparra Reef is located approximately 100 km south of Whyalla. Almost 80% of the 144 t of greenlip quota in the Central Zone is harvested from this reef. Another 10 t of greenlip abalone is harvested from nearby Cowell. Little is known on how far south this hypersaline water will reach and what impact it will have on abalone stocks near Tiparra Reef and Cowell.

Building a desalination plant is likely (L6) to have a moderate (C2) impact on the Central Zone abalone fishery, resulting in a risk rating of MODERATE (12).

Indicators and Performance measures To be determined

4.7.3. Impacts of Other Drivers

Economic (Market forces) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of market forces on the fishery (MODERATE)

Objective To minimise the impact market forces have on the abalone fishery.

Australian abalone is exported mostly to South East Asia, where it is considered a traditional food in Asian culinary cuisine. The nominal price of abalone fluctuates from year to year, depending on a range of market forces such as exchange rates and demand. The relationship between the price of abalone and the exchange rate over the past 16 years can be readily observed in Figure 19.

The coefficient of correlation between the exchange rate (USD) and the price for South Australia abalone for the period 1990/91 to 2006/07 is –0.67. This indicates that there is a strong inverse relationship between the two variables. Thus, when the Australian dollar appreciates, as it did between 2000/01 and 2007/08, there is, generally, a corresponding decline in the average price of South Australian abalone.

70 DRAFT

50 8

45 7 40 6 35

30 5

25 4

20 3 Price (Nominal) 15

2 Exchange (HKD) Rate 10 1 5

0 0

1990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/971997/981998/991999/002000/012001/022002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/08

Price Exchange Rate

Figure 19 Exchange rate (USD) and price for South Australian Abalone, 1990/01 to 2007/08 (source: EconSearch 2009).

The global financial crisis of 2008–2009 has resulted in prolonged market instability. Adding to the instability are factors such as the swine flu, which has reduced the number of patrons eating out in restaurants in Asia. If this continues, the demand for abalone is likely to be reduced.

Market forces could possibly (L4) have a severe (C3) consequence on the fishery, resulting in a risk rating of MODERATE (12).

Indicators Export value of the South Australian Abalone Fishery Exchange rate for Australian dollar

Performance measures To be determined

Economic (Market access) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of market access on the fishery (MODERATE)

Objective To minimise the impact market access has on the abalone fishery.

In a submission to the China Free-Trade-Agreement feasibility study to the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Abalone Association of Australasia Incorporated listed several anti-competitive and market access barriers in the abalone export trade into China, one of the largest markets for abalone.

71 DRAFT

These included: 1. Depending on the official administering the import duty requirements, duties can range between 25% and 45% on abalone imports into China. This provides significant inconsistency in the application of duties payable in China and imposing additional costs on Australian Exports into the Chinese market.

2. The abalone export community in Australia also face additional restrictions in the Chinese market, with the imposition of import quotas

3. Import licenses imposed in China are seen as another limitation to a free market relationship between Australia and China.

4. Another trade barrier experienced by Australian exporters is the restrictions imposed by the Central Bank in China on outgoing funds to pay for imports.

5. There is strong evidence that some Australian brand names have been copied in China and used on abalone products packed from illegally sourced raw material.

6. It is common practice for exporters of Australian live seafood to be paid after the goods have arrived in China. If the buyer defaults on payment, the legal system in China offers no protection to the firm seeking payment for the goods.

Australian businesses are required to comply with strict trade practices legislation policed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). These measures are imposed to ensure that certain unfair trading practices are not permitted in Australia.

This is not the case in China. At present a cartel of buyers in Yantian (near Shenzhen) manipulates the live and frozen seafood market from Australia to China. This has the effect of driving down prices and blocking supply.

In light of these problems, it was possible (L4) that market access could have a severe (C3) impact on the abalone fishery, resulting in a risk rating of MODERATE (12).

Indicators and Performance measures To be determined

72 DRAFT

4.7.4. Access

Marine parks ERA Risk Rating: Impact of marine parks on the fishery (LOW)

To conserve the coastal, estuarine and marine environments of South Australia, the State Government (Department of Environment and Heritage) has committed to establishing a network of 19 multiple-use marine parks within State waters. Within each marine park, areas of high conservation value will be designated as Sanctuary zones, where fishing will not be permitted. While every effort will be made to ensure marine parks have minimal effect on commercial fishers the State Government recognises existing users may be displaced in some areas.

The outer boundaries of the marine parks were recently identified and cover more than 40% of state marine waters. The details of zoning arrangements within these outer boundaries will not be finalised until 2011. Subject to zoning arrangements, there is a risk that some abalone grounds will no longer be accessible because they are in a Sanctuary Zone.

Without further information on the zoning arrangements, it was considered likely (L6) that marine parks could have a minor (C1) impact on the fishery.. This resulted in a risk rating of LOW (6).

73 DRAFT

5. REFERENCES

Andrew, N.L., Worthington, D.G., Brett, P.A., Bentley, N., Chick, R.C. & Blount, C. (1998). Interactions between the abalone fishery and sea urchins in New South Wales. Final report to FRDC, 63 pp.

Babcock, R. and Keesing, J. (1999). Fertilization biology of the abalone Haliotis laevigata: laboratory and field studies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56: 1668-1678.

Brown, L.D. & Murray, N.D. (1992). Population genetics, gene flow, and stock structure in Haliotis rubra and Haliotis laevigata. In: S.A. Shepherd, M.J. Tegner & S.A. Guzma del Proo (Eds.) Abalone of the world: biology, fisheries and culture. Proceedings of the 1st International symposium on abalone. Fishing News Books: Oxford, London. pp. 24–33.

Chang, P.H., Kuo, S.H., Lai, S.H., Yang, H.S. Ting, Y.Y., Hsu, C.L. & Chen, H.C. (2005). Herpes-like virus infection causing mortality of cultured abalone Haliotis diversicolor supertexta in Taiwan. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 65: 23–27.

Chick, R.C. & Mayfield, S. (2006). Western Zone Abalone (Haliotis laevigata and H. rubra) Fishery 2. Region B. Fishery assessment report for PIRSA. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD05/0017-4. SARDI Research Report Series No. 161. 26pp.

Chick, R.C., Mayfield, S., Turich, N. & Foureur, B.L. (2006). Western Zone Abalone (Haliotis laevigata and H. rubra) Fishery 1. Region A. Fishery assessment report for PIRSA. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD05/0017-3. SARDI Research Report Series No. 167. 103pp.

Chick, R.C., Turich, N. & Mayfield, S. (2008). Western Zone Abalone (Haliotis laevigata and H. rubra) Fishery 1. Region A. Fishery status report for PIRSA. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2007/000561-2. SARDI Research Report Series No. 289. 40pp.

EconSearch (2009). Economic Indicators for the Commercial Fisheries of South Australia, Summary Report, 2007/08. Report prepared for Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide. 44pp.

Fletcher, W.,J. Chesson, J., Fisher M., Sainsbury, K.J., Hundloe, T., Smith, A.D.M. & Whitworth, B. (2002). National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The 'How To' Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145, Canberra, Australia. 120pp.

Goggin, C.L. & Lester, R.J.G. (1995). Perkinsus, a protistan parasite of abalone in Australia: A review. Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 639– 646.doi:10.1071/MF9950639.

74 DRAFT

Hancock, B. (2000). Genetic subdivision of Roe‟s abalone, Haliotis roei Grey (Mollusca: Gastropoda), in South-Western Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 51:679–687.

Henry, G.W. and Lyle, J.M. (2003). The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Final Report to the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation Project No. 1999/158. 188pp.

Huang, Y., Wu., Yan, J. & Zhou, W. (1999). Investigation on an exterminate disease of Haliotis divericolor aquatilis. Fujian Veterinary and Zootechnics 21: 4–5 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Hooper, C., Hardy-Smith, P. & Hadnlinger, J. (2007). Neuropathy in farmed Australian Abalone. Australian Veterinary Journal 85: 188–193.

Lester, R.J.G. & Davis, G.H.G. (1981). A new Perkinsus species (Apicomplexa,Perkinsea) from the abalone Haliotis ruber. Journal of lnvertebrate Pathology 37:181-187.

McShane, P.E. & Smith M.G. (1991). Recruitment variation in sympatric populations of Haliotis rubra (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in southeast Australian waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series 73: 203–210.

Mayfield, S., Carlson, I. & Chick, R.C. (2008). Central Zone Abalone (Haliotis laevigata and H. rubra) Fishery. Fishery assessment report for PIRSA. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2007/000611-2. SARDI Research Report Series No. 306. 65pp.

Mayfield, S., Hogg, A., Saunders, T.M. & Burch, P. (2009). Southern Zone Abalone Fishery (Haliotis rubra & H. laevigata). Fishery Assessment Report for PIRSA. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2007/000552-2. SARDI Research Report Series No.350. 51pp

Mayfield, S. & Saunders, T.M. (Eds). (2008). Towards optimising the spatial scale of abalone fishery management. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project No. 2004/019. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2008/000082-1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 273. ISBN 978-0-7308-5386-2. 148pp.

Morgan, L.E. & Shepherd, S.A. (2006). Population and spatial structure of two common temperate reef herbivores: abalone and sea urchins. In J.P. Kritzer & P.F. Sale. (Eds.) Marine Metapopulations. Academic Press: San Diego, CA. pp. 205–234.

Momoyama, K., Nakatsugawa, T. & Yurano, N. (1999). Mass mortality of juvenile abalones, Haliotis spp., caused by amyotrophia. Fish Pathology, 34, 7-14 (in Japanese with English abstract).

75 DRAFT

Nobes, M., Casement, D. & Mayfield, S. (2004). Management plan for the South Australian Abalone Fishery. South Australian Fisheries Management Series No. 42. 47pp.

Prince, J.D., Sellers, T.L., Ford, W.B. &Talbot, S.R. (1988). Confirmation of a relationship between the localized abundance of breeding stock and recruitment for Haliotis rubra Leach (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 122: 91-104.

Roberts, R. (2001). A review of larval settlement cues for abalone (Haliotis spp.). 4th International Abalone Symposium, Cape Town, South Africa, 6-11th February. Journal of Shellfish Research 20: 571-586.

Shepherd, S.A. (1988). Studies on southern Australian Abalone (Genus Haliotis). VIII. Growth of juvenile H. laevigata. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39: 177–183.

Shepherd, S.A. (2008). Abalone of Gulf St Vincent. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I.R., Harbison, P. & Jennings, J.T. (Eds), Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia, Adelaide. pp 448- 455.

Shepherd, S.A. & Turner, J.A. (1985). Studies on southern Australian abalone (genus Haliotis). VI. Habitat preference, abundance and predators of juveniles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 93: 285-298.

Shepherd, S.A., Lowe, D. & Partington, D. (1992) Studies on southern Australian abalone (genus Haliotis) XIII: larval dispersal and recruitment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 164: 247-260.

Shepherd, S.A. & Daume, S. (1996). Ecology and survival of juvenile abalone in a crustose coralline habitat in South Australia, Proceedings of an international workshop: survival strategies in early life stages of marine resources. A.A.Balkema Publishers, Brookfield USA, pp. 297-314.

Shepherd, S.A. & Rodda, K.R. (2001) Sustainability demands vigilance: evidence for serial decline of the greenlip abalone fishery and a review of management. Journal of Shellfish Research 20: 829 - 841.

Zacharin, W. (1997). Management plan for the South Australian Abalone Fishery. Internal document, PIRSA Fisheries. 33pp.

76 DRAFT

6. APPENDICES

6.1. Appendix 1: Likelihood and Consequence Tables

Table 13 Likelihood Definitions

Level Descriptor

Likely (6) It is expected to occur

Occasional (5) May occur

Possible (4) Some evidence to suggest this is possible here

Unlikely (3) Uncommon, but has been known to occur elsewhere

Rare (2) May occur in exceptional circumstances

Remote (1) Never heard of, but not impossible

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

Table 14 Consequence categories for the Major Retained/Non-Retained Species

Level Ecological (Retained: target/Non-retained: major)

Negligible (0) Insignificant impacts to populations. Unlikely to be measurable against background variability for this population. Minor (1) Possibly detectable, but minimal impact on population size and none on dynamics. Moderate (2) Full exploitation rate, but long-term recruitment/dynamics not adversely impacted. Severe (3) Affecting recruitment levels of stocks/or their capacity to increase. Major (4) Likely to cause local extinctions, if continued in longer term (i.e. probably requiring listing of species in an appropriate category of the endangered species list (e.g. IUCN category). Catastrophic (5) Local extinctions are imminent/immediate (Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

77 DRAFT

Table 15 Consequence categories for the By-Product Species/Minor Non-retained species Ecological (RETAINED: By-product/Non-retained: Level other) Negligible (0) The area where fishing occurs is negligible compared to where the relevant stock of the species resides (< 1%). Minor (1) Take in this fishery is small (< 10%), compared to total take by all fisheries and these species are covered explicitly elsewhere. Take and area of capture by this fishery is small, compared to known area of distribution (< 20%). Moderate (2) Relative area of, or susceptibility to capture is suspected to be less than 50% and species do not have vulnerable life history traits. Severe (3) No information is available on the relative area or susceptibility to capture or on the vulnerability of life history traits of this type of species. Relative levels of capture/susceptibility suspected/known to be greater than 50% and species should be examined explicitly. Major (4) N/A Once a consequence reaches this point it should be examined using Table 14.

Catastrophic (5) N/A (See Table 14). (Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

Table 16 Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on Protected species

Level Ecological Negligible (0) Almost none are impacted Minor (1) Some are impacted but there is no impact on stock Moderate (2) Levels of impact are at the maximum acceptable level Severe (3) Same as target species Major (4) Same as target species Catastrophic (5) Same as target species (Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

78 DRAFT

Table 17 Consequence levels for the impacts of a fishery on habitats

Level Ecological (HABITAT) Negligible (0) Insignificant impacts to habitat or populations of species making up the habitat – probably not measurable levels of impact. Activity only occurs in very small areas of the habitat, or if larger area is used, the impact on the habitats from the activity is unlikely to be measurable against background variability. (Suggestion- these could be activities that affect < 1% of original area of habitat or if operating on a larger area, have virtually no direct impact) Minor (1) Measurable impacts on habitat(s) but these are very localised compared to total habitat area. (Suggestion – these impacts could be < 5% of the original area of habitat) Moderate (2) There are likely to be more widespread impacts on the habitat but the levels are still considerable acceptable given the % of area affected, the types of impact occurring and the recovery capacity of the habitat. (Suggestion – for impact on non-fragile habitats this may be up to 50% [similar to population dynamics theory] - but for more fragile habitats, to stay in this category the percentage area affected may need to be smaller, e.g. 20%) Severe (3) The level of impact on habitats may be larger than is sensible to ensure that the habitat will not be able to recover adequately, or it will cause strong downstream effects from loss of function. (Suggestion - Where the activity makes a significant impact in the area affected and the area > 25 - 50% [based on recovery rates] of habitat is being removed) Major (4) Substantially too much of the habitat is being affected, which may endanger its long-term survival and result in severe changes to ecosystem function. (Suggestion this may equate to 70 - 90% of the habitat being affected or removed by the activity) Catastrophic (5) Effectively the entire habitat is in danger of being affected in a major way/removed. (Suggestion: this is likely to be in range of > 90% of the original habitat area being affected). (Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

79 DRAFT

Table 18 Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on the general ecosystem/trophic levels

Level Ecological (ECOSYSTEM) Negligible (0) General - Insignificant impacts to habitat or populations, Unlikely to be measurable against background variability. Ecosystem: Interactions may be occurring but it is unlikely that there would be any change outside of natural variation. Minor (1) Ecosystem: Captured species do not play a keystone role – only minor changes in relative abundance of other constituents. Moderate (2) Ecosystem: measurable changes to the ecosystem components without there being a major change in function. (no loss of components). Severe (3) Ecosystem: Ecosystem function altered measurably and some function or components are locally missing/declining/increasing outside of historical range &/or allowed/facilitated new species to appear. Recovery measured in years. Major (4) Ecosystem: A major change to ecosystem structure and function (different dynamics now occur with different species/groups now the major targets of capture). Recovery period measured in years to decades. Catastrophic (5) Ecosystem: Total collapse of ecosystem processes. Long-term recovery period may be greater than decades. (Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

80 DRAFT

Table 19 Consequence levels for impacts of management of a fishery at a political level

Level SOCIAL - POLITICA Negligible (0) No impact - would not have any flow-on impacts to the local community. No fisheries department staff would need to make a statement. Minor (1) May have minor negative impact on the community (for example, small number of job losses) but these impacts would be easily absorbed. Moderate (2) Some increase in unemployment and decrease in overall income to which the community will adjust over time. Some community concern, which may translate to some political action or other forms of protest. Severe (4) Significant reductions in employment and income associated with the fishery. Significant employment and income flow-on effects to other community businesses, as reduced income and increased unemployment in fishing works its way through the local economy. Significant levels of community concern over the future of the community, which may translate to political action or other forms of protest. Major (6) High level of community impacts which the community could not successfully adapt to without external assistance. Significant level of protest and political lobbying likely. Large-scale employment and income losses in the fishing sector of the local economy. Significant flow-on effects in terms of increasing unemployment and income reductions as a consequence of changes to the fishery. Decline in population and expenditure-based services (e.g. schools, supermarkets, bank). Population declines as families leave the region looking for work. Catastrophic (8) Large-scale impacts well beyond the capacity of the community to absorb and adjust to. Likely to lead to large- scale rapid decline in community income and increase in unemployment in areas directly and indirectly related to fishing. May lead to large-scale and rapid reduction in population as families leave the region. Likely to lead to high levels of political action, protest and conflict. Significant reduction in access to private and public sector services, as businesses become unviable and target populations needed to attract government and commercial services decline below threshold levels. (Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

81 DRAFT