The environmental, social and economic impacts of large-capacity fishing vessels commonly known as 'Supertrawlers' operating in 's Marine Jurisdiction

Response from the facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/StopTheSuperTrawlers

Note: This page is administered by a group of individuals who have no political affiliations. We are fishers. We are environmentally aware. We care. The page is single-issue. It is volunteer based and has had no funding from any sources other than from the pockets of the administrators themselves. We wish to remain anonymous in order that supporters of the super trawler (including powerful fishing interests, politicians) and of environmental and fishing groups that might be interested in avoiding public challenge are not able to “play the man” rather than playing the ball.

Below are listed (mostly in bullet-point form) some of the items that we think are relevant for this senate inquiry. Major time constraints on the part of the administrators means this has not been developed as we would like. Not all key concerns have been expanded, but we believe it conveys a significant proportion of our concerns.

Executive Summary:

The super trawler (and the processes around it):

1. Spurs the consolidation of fishing interests into the hands of a few fishing magnates 2. These national resources are thus more easily controlled by foreign companies 3. Consolidation also moves economic activity from many smaller coastal communities to just a single city (and offshore due to foreign ownership of the trawler and Seafish ). This has resulting impacts on the ECONOMIC and SOCIAL activity of those coastal areas. 4. As the catching rate increases during the spawning season we wonder whether the super trawlers will not be assigned to other fisheries during the slower months (spreading super trawler activity over a wider range of fisheries) 5. Trawling of spawning aggregations can lead to wildly unpredictable population changes and is completely inconsistent with a sustainable approach to fishing. Most managed resources are protected during the breeding season/activity, and we believe it should be the same for the SPF. 6. The super trawler has no social license to operate 7. AFMA have protected the super trawler operations rather than protect our natural resource 8. AFMA governance has deteriorated… actually failed. We believe there needs to be a major shakeup. 9. AFMA provide a cloak of invisibility (and therefore a complete lack of transparency) for the super trawler operations 10. AFMA are allowing by-catch mitigation activities (the new barrier net) to be used without comprehensive monitoring to validate whether dead or injured animals are not falling out of the way and therefore never recorded. 11. The ECONOMIC benefit of the super trawler operations are dwarfed by the economic activities that rely on a healthy marine food chain, of which the SPF are a key component 12. After a year of operations we are convinced that trawling operations are focussed on the areas of recreational and game fishing interests (and not spread over the massive area that AFMA has lead the public to believe since the attempted introduction of the Margiris. 13. Localised depletion is unavoidable where it fishes, leading to environmental impacts (for predator species that are not geographically mobile – such as seals, sea lions, penguins, …) 14. Bycatch, although claimed to be a relatively small percentage of the total catch is still a relatively massive volume by historic standards 15. Mammal deaths are unacceptable and the super trawler should face financial penalties with each occurrence (just as recreational fishers would). 16. Insufficient protection exists around some less geographically-mobile species – such as penguin rookeries

Impact of consolidation of quotas (not just for SPF):

• Scales of economy drive out the smaller (local) commercial operators who cannot compete o Reduces the amount of locally-available fish . Reduces the quality of offerings from local restaurants and shops . Reduces the tourism and local food opportunities/experience . Increases costs of fish locally (greater imports to the area) o Reduces the local economy . Reduced revenue from the local fishermen (and all the supporting economic activity required to support their operations) . Reduced added-value activity performed in the local economy (restaurants, shops, processing, food derivatives) o Reduces local population in small coastal communities . Number of social and economic effects • Increasing power of fishing barons o Increasing influence of fishing barons on AFMA governance of the fishery . such as has been seen on the AFMA SPF committees – and highlighted by the resignation of the President of one of those committees. . This can only weaken governance within AFMA and move the balance between economic and environmental decisions in a less sustainable direction . The AFMA governance processes are eventually influenced in the favour of these operators vis-à-vis other smaller operators o Increasing influence of fishing barons within the political process . As fishing operations become larger they are more able to use resources (not just limited to cash) to win favour with politicians and political parties • This results in additional pressure to change processes (or ensure that they remain) that favour the continuing activities, influence and control of these fishing barons . Recent donations from South Australian fishing barons to the office of Senator Richard Colbeck ($250k before the election and another $70k after the election) are just one example of this • Increases likelihood of foreign raiders taking ownership of key Australian natural resources o they are highly unlikely to buy out and consolidate 30 small operations – but highly likely to buy out already consolidated operations

Impact of increase in fishing capacity:

• The Star has dramatically increased the fishing capacity within the SPF. • Further massive increases are likely since: o SPFRAG minutes showed that Gerry Geen indicated that a quota of 15,000 tonne was required for the Abel Tasman o The Geelong Star has smaller requirements (we think it would be much smaller than 12,000 tonne) o Current ATC for the SPF would therefore cater for 3+ super trawlers of the size of the Geelong Star o AFMA guidelines show that the ATC can be more than doubled if more recent scientific samples are taken (the logic being that as data ages its relevancy diminishes).

AFMA “On-the-fly” governance:

• AFMA has proceeded with undue haste in just about every aspect of the Geelong Star’s activity • Each time there was an issue AFMA would quickly allow a new change in process/procedures to enable the Geelong Star to continue fishing as quickly as possible • Despite claiming trawling would be spread over vast areas stretching from state waters out to 200km we have recently discovered that large parts of this area in the SE are also not permitted for mid water trawling – meaning that the super trawler will be concentrating its efforts in the same area that Australia’s greatest number of recreational fishers are.

AFMA’s removal of dissenting voices:

• The SPFRAG was the only avenue for environmental and recreational fishing representatives to be properly informed about what was occurring in the SPF and also to have a say in its governance • Prior to closure of the SPFRAG we also saw the Chairperson resign in protest at the insidious influence of the proponents of the super trawler.

Unhealthy AFMA governance:

Other clear advice to AFMA has been that night time fishing increases the risks of dolphin deaths – yet they appear to be seriously considering removing the ban on night time fishing. This completely overlooks the fact that the other main procedural precaution (ensuring no dolphins are visible in the area prior to commencement of fishing) would be nullified during night time fishing due to lack of visibility.

After the Margiris fiasco AFMA promised to manage the SPF fishery with much greater transparency. Instead, it has closed down the SPF Resource Allocation Group which was the main advisory group to AFMA on the management of the SPF fishery. This was where both the Recreational Fishers and the Environmentalists had a minimum level of representation and input into the SPF fishery. AFMA (which reports to Senator Colbeck) has shut down their dissenting voices – and this is consistent with Senator Colbeck’s attempts to block them from having the two-way transparency afforded by a Senate Inquiry. The SPF RAG is also the same committee where the independent chairperson recently resigned due to concerns over the conflicts of interest and influence exerted by Gerry Geen from Seafish Tasmania.

AFMA persist despite there being NO SCOIAL LICENSE:

• AFMA and the super trawler proponents have failed to get any acceptance of the Geelong Star’s activities by Australians. • Multiple surveys have shown 95+% of Australians want the Geelong Star kicked out of Australian waters. o One of these surveys was performed in Senator Richard Colbeck’s electorate at the time when Devonport was expecting to host the Geelong Star (so when people might have been the most supportive in order to have some additional jobs and economic activity in the city)… even that (run by the Advocate) showed only 5% support. • The bottom line is that the Geelong Star has NO social license to fish the SPF, and nor do the decisions taken by AFMA. o o Recent surveys contained within Fairfax news items have shown two very different results: . 6.4% support (with 196 votes) in the April Poll - http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/2987038/super-trawler-enters- australian-waters-poll/ . 56.7% support (with 1,949 votes) in the December poll - http://www.merimbulanewsweekly.com.au/story/3564868/super-trawler- geelong-star-could-be-heading-back-to-far-south-coast-poll/?cs=1225 . We believe that the explanation for this is that both surveys allow multiple and repeated voting from the same people/devices. Should the super trawler proponents ask that this be used as evidence we simply ask that you ask for the raw data from Fairfax (or at least the IP addresses so that duplicates can be removed). o In order to validate their claim of “improved support” we created a single-question survey that only allows a single vote from each device (IP address). https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QQCR3N7 . We also posted this survey on the pro-trawler facebook page “Science of the Super Trawler” https://www.facebook.com/ScienceoftheSuperTrawler and invited them to share with all their supporters . This survey currently shows only 3.9% support (95 votes) for the super trawlers.

Fishing of spawning aggregations:

• For the first 10 months the Geelong Star was taking around 6 weeks per trip (and several of those trips were completed without a full load as they were curtailed due to dolphin deaths)… but the last 2 trips have been completed in just a few weeks. This is because they are fishing the spawning aggregations. • Clearly the fact that fish can be taken out immediately before, during, or after spawning can make a huge difference to the resulting amount of fry. • Fishing of the spawning aggregations is clearly disruptive not only for the fish taken, but for those in the vicinity of the trawling … this could have repercussions on the spawning process in a number of ways (egg production, fertilisation rate, …) • A precautionary approach would ensure that the trawling was not permitted during the spawning season.

Localised depletion:

• The main diet of most of the gamefish (in the locations where Australian gamefishers catch them) is the SPF species. o The super trawler proponents claim that these predator species will eat alternative fish. This may be the case … but in other locations. If the SPF are removed from an environment then the mobile predator species will move away in search of food. . This must have a ripple effect on the predators of those alternate species o Less mobile species (such as seals, sealions and penguins) will clearly suffer from a reduction in their primary source of food. . All colonies (not just the sealions) should be provided spatial protection. • They do not state that birds that rely on the SPF are able to find these alternative fish at the surface.

Commercial Economy vs Recreational Activity vs Environment:

• Currently AFMA is given control/governance over 100% of the SPF fishery and it is up to it how it best determines how to manage that “resource”. • We think that before a resource is made available to AFMA that the Environmental department should first determine the requirements to maintain species (and food-chain) sustainability… ie that the Environmental Department determines the ATC

ECONOMIC value calculations for Australia:

• Like any business proposal the super trawler proponents should have to submit an economic value statement to demonstrate the value to Australia. This should include all economic activity for Australia such as employment (for Australian residents), Supplies, Registrations, Fees, Taxes, etc. • We strongly urge the Senate Inquiry to recommend that two cost models be generated to compare the net economic value for Australia of: o the current situation (fishing of the SPF by super trawlers) o no super trawler • The models can include many of the points raised in this and all the other submissions for the two cases.

Best ECONOMIC use of resources (vs the risks):

AFMA is supposed to manage the natural fish resources in the best interest (current and future) of the Australian people. Having no social license for this activity is an extremely strong indicator that Australian’s do not believe that the overall benefits of this activity reflect the risks and impacts that it has on much of the food chain in Australian waters.

The work of Australian scientists is very important – especially for key species in the food chain such as the SPF. These species form the corner stone on which offshore recreational fishing revolves, and most of the important questions concerning localised depletion, re-population and species movements are still a long way from being answered, and whilst this is the case then the precautionary principle should dictate that the allowable catch should not be anywhere near the historic highs (see graph).

There is already great inter-annual variability of SPF fish stocks levels due to natural causes. The additional pressure of factory freezer super trawlers is really not precautionary at all, and will only serve to worsen volatility.

Australia already sees 30,000 tonnes of its baitfish resources used each year to feed SA tuna farms. The Geelong Star’s focus on the East Coast of Australia introduces high industrial fishing pressures with unknown consequences on local stocks. This can dramatically impact on the game fishing activities and all the small coastal communities which rely on a healthy game fish industry. Recreational fishing in Australia (estimated to be 4 million people with economic value of $10bn) absolutely dwarfs the $20m Geelong Star trawling which mostly benefits the 75% foreign-owned Seafish Tasmania and the 100% foreign-owned Seafish Tasmania Pelagic. AFMA must ensure that its evaluation processes properly include all economic and social impacts.